(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A history of botanical nomenclature."

\jP Biodiversity 
fe^HeriUge 

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org 



Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 

St. Louis :Missouri Botanical Garden Press,1914- 
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/702 



V.78 (1991): http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/14010 

Page(s): Page 32, Page 33, Page 34, Page 35, Page 36, Page 37, Page 38, Page 39, Page 40, 

Page 41 , Page 42, Page 43, Page 44, Page 45, Page 46, Page 47, Page 48, Page 49, Page 50, 

Page 51 , Page 52, Page 53, Page 54, Page 55, Page 56, Page 57 



Contributed by: Missouri Botanical Garden 
Sponsored by: Missouri Botanical Garden 



Generated 2 October 2010 7:00 PM 
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/pdf3/004353000014010 



This page intentionally left blank. 



32 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



Recent Advances in Botany, Volume 1. Univ* To- 
ronto Press, Toronto* 

Walker, J. W. ET al. 1975, The bases of angiosperm 
phylogeny. Ann. Missouri Bot. Card. 62: 515-834. 

Wiley, E O. 1981. The Theory and Practice of Phy- 
logenetic Systematics. Wiley-Interscience, New York. 

Willis, M. 1949* By Their Fruits^ A Life of Ferdinand 
von Mueller. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. 



Yatskievych, G* & R. C. Moran. 1989. Primary di- 
vergence and species concepts in ferns, Amer. Fern 
J. 79: 36-45, 

ZlJRAWSKi, G. & M. T. Clecg, 1987. Evolution of 
higher-plant chloroplast DN A -encoded genes: impli- 
cations for structure-function and phylogenetic stud- 
ies. Annual Rev, PL Physiol. 38: 391-418. 



i 



A HISTORY OF BOTANICAL 
NOMENCLATURE* 



Dan H. Nicohon^ 



Abstract 

I divide botanical nomenclature into three partly overlapping periods: the schismatic period (1840-1930), the 
dark ages (1915-1950), and the lAPT renaissance (195 0-date). The schisms began with the 1843 British Association 
for the Advancement of Science approval of zoological rules and became manifest with the 1867 Paris Congress 
approval of Alphonse de Candolle's botanical '1awsJ* Reunification efforts, such as those by Dall (1877.12), failed. 
The contemporary rise of ''Darwinism'' added to the divisiveness. By the late 1800s, various botanical centers had 
or were evolving modified or different Codes from the Candollean, not to mention fully formed Codes from ''outsiders" 
like Saint-Lager (1880,03?, 188L04) and Kuntze (1891.10), The 1905 Vienna Congress eliminated all but the 
Brittonian (American) schism, which continued until the 1930 Cambridge Congress compromises. A nomenclatural 
'*dark age" descended when the 1915 London Congress was cancelled because of a subsequent engagement, World 
War L The next congress (Ithaca, 1926) declared itself incompetent due to insufficient mternational representation. 
The 1930 Cambridge Congress revised the 1912 Brussels Code but, largely because of the death of Briquet in 1931, 
its Code appeared only a few months before the 1935 Amsterdam Congress that amended it. Again a World War 
struck and no official Amsterdam Code was ever produced. The 1950 Stockholm Congress saw the establishment of 
the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, its journal, Taxon, in which all Code amendment proposals now 
appear, and its serial publication, Regnum Vegetabile, in which ail subsequent Codes appear at the remorseless six- 
year pace of the congresses. 



The Linnaean aphorisms (1737.07) concerning 
nomenclature basically concern generic nomencla- 
ture (the first part of the binary system of nomen- 
clature). Few seem to have realized that the species 
names Linnaeus discussed are the diagnostic phrase 
names, not the species epithets, called nomina trivi- 
alia, that Linnaeus later, for plants (1753.05*01), 
adopted in his revolutionary binomial (or biverbal) 
system. 

The Linnaean nomenclature (binomial) system 
has two facets: divorcing the name from the di- 
agnosis and minimizing classification* Systems that 
totally eliminate classification, such as uninomial 
systems, are unwieldy. Systems that try to diag- 
nose, such as phrase names, are unstable. Bergeret 
devised the worst of all possible systems, called 
phytonomatotechnie, a 15-letter uninomial system 
with each letter expressing a descriptive charac- 
teristic, such as leglyabiajisbey for Belladonna. 
Du Petit Thouars added a bit of the family name 
to each generic name (such as ffabeaorchis to 
replace Habenaria). Fossil nomenclature is still 
troubled by mixing generic nomenclature with mor- 
phology. 

Priority had no part of the early schemes of 
nomenclature. Their authors, including Linnaeus, 
were focused on replacing the past. Linnaeus was 



the winner of this competition but contemporary 
and subsequent workers continued to devise new 
nomenclatural schemes and rules to overturn the 

past. 

Early Recognition of Modified 
Pkiokity (1813) 

Auguslin Pyramus de Candolle (1813), about to 
initiate the great Prodromus, gave a nice discussion 
of nomenclature of what might be termed good 
practices with examples. He (p. 250) favored pri- 
ority except in the following five cases: (1) if the 
name was false and contradicted the characters of 
the plant, such as Lunaria annua (a biennial); (2) 
if the name was contrary to Linnaean practices 
such as pre- Linnaean or common names or if named 
by travelers who were not naturalists; (3) if the 
name was a later homonym of a name already 
published, be it in the plant or animal kingdom; 
(4) if the name was a later homonym or a tautonym 
created in the process of maintaining the epithet 
of an early name; (5) if the name was a nomen 
nudum, lacking at least a phrase sufficient to make 
recognition possible, such as "in a simple catalogue 
of a garden*" De Candolle did not use such modern 
words as epithet, homonym^ tautonym, or nomen 
nudum but that is what he talked about. This was 



^ I thank Krister Karttunen (Helsinki) and Ronald Stuck ey (Columbus, Ohio), who shared their bibliographies on 
noTiienclature. 1 also thank Werner Greuter, director, and the staff (Berlin) for access to and all facilities at their 
quickly regrowing library. 

- Department of Botany NHB-166, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 



Ann, Missouri Bot. Gard, 78: 33-56, 1991. 



34 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



still a biological code, revealed by the avoidance 
of homunyrny with earlier names in zoology. 

There undoubtedly are earlier authors who had 
the idea of trying to maintain usage, unlike re- 
formers such as Linnaeus. The general idea was 
to maintain usage from Linnaeus by the principle 
of priority with certain modifications. It is the mod- 
ifications that have caused most of the disagree- 
ments* 

Beginning of the Break With 
Zoology (1843) 

The approval of Strickland's 1843 Code by a 
committee of the British Association for the Ad- 
vancement of Science officially began what I call 
a split- However, they were not thinking in terms 
of a split, as is clear from the second of the following 
quotations: 

The first quote concerns the evil that they wish 
to address, "It consists in this, that when naturalists 
are agreed as the characters and limits of an in- 
dividual group or species, they still disagree in the 
appellations by which they distinguish it/* Further 
on they discuss the sins that create this evil. 

Finally, so all will know how botanical nomen- 
clature was perceived by zoologists (including 
Charles Darwin, a member of the Strickland Com- 
mittee): '\ , . we conceive that the botanical no- 
menclature of the present day stands in much less 
need of distinct enactment than the zoological. The 
admirable rules laid down by Linnaeus, Smith, l)e- 
candolle^ and other botanists . , ,, hav« always ex- 
ercised a beneficial influence over their disciples. 
Hence the language of botany has attained a more 
perfect and stable condition than zoology and , , * 
its present backward and ahnormal stale. * . /' 

One of the subsequently liveliest issues was the 
question of author citation in new combinations. 
This work recommended (for the first time?) citing 
only the author first publishing a name for the 
species (optionally in parentheses), irrespe(!tive in 
what genus the epithet was now used. Peter F, 
Stevens has suggested (in litt.) '^that the develop- 
ment of this convention is associated with changes 
in the philosophy that species are created, fixed 
and immutable, and placed in similar genera; what 
came to be important in priority was who first 
discovered the unknown species, not who finally 
put it in the Vight' genus/' 

Candollean Laws of 1867 

On 1 August 1867 Alphonse de Candolle fin- 
ished the cornerstone work of botanical nomencla- 
ture for the meeting of the International Botanical 



Congress of 16 August 1867 in Paris. This 60- 
page paper has 1 1 pages of introduction, 19 pages 
of "laws'' in 68 articles, and 28 pages of com- 
mentary. The commentary is particularly valuable 
because it comments on past usage with examples. 
One of the main issues (one-third of the commen- 
tary) concerns author citation, favoring the old way 
(only the name of the transferring author) but 
noting that others had introduced the new way 
(only the name of the author first publishing the 
basionym) in botany. The issue is exemplified by 
how to cite Robert Brown's Matthiola tristis, pre- 
viously known as Linnaeus's Che Irani has iris lis; 
the old way is Matthiola iristis R* Br., and the 
new way is Matthiola tristis L* 

According to Bentham (1878.12), it was the 
nomenclatural objections to J. Miiller's treatment 
of Euphorbiaceae in the Prodromus that occa- 
sioned de CandoUe's producing his Lois. See See- 
mann (1866.12,01), Cray (1867 01), and A. L, 
de Candolle (1867.05,01) for contemporary dis- 
cussion, De Candolle indicated that Karl Koch's 
proposals (1866) to the London International Hor- 
ticultural Exhibition and Botanical Congress pro- 
vided the inspiration. Alphonse de Candolle was 
president of the London 1866 Congress and might 
have been stimulated to start thinking about cod- 
ifying rules. However, 1 found little in Koch's pro- 
posals or the proceedings that would have been as 
inspiring as the nomenclatural novelties that Jean 
Miiller slipped into de Candolle's Prodromus. Mill- 
ler's major sin was to credit names, such as Croton^ 
to himself when he redefined the taxon. 

Apparently between 1 and 16 August 1867, a 
commission, composed of Du Morlier, Weddell, 
Cosson, J,-E. Planchon, Eichler, Bureau, and de 
Candolle {representing France, England, Germany, 
Belgium, and Switzerland), went over the proposed 
articles and suggested modifications in the form of 
motions to the Congress. At the Congress (cf. de 
Candolle, 1867.1 1) there were the first discussions 
of vital questions such as Order vs. Family, Cohort 
as a rank between Class and Order, long discussions 
about how to name hybrids, more debate on author 
citation for new combinations, even a mention of 
types in discussions. Otto Kuntze, who later will 
make himself famous in nomenclature, made a 
proposal about pleonasms and it passed. Eichler 
argued for replacing -ae- with -i-, as in hederae- 
folia^ but was finessed by Alphonse de Candolle 
who said this was a matter of latinity and grammar, 
not nomenclature. 

It is worth noting that the Code (1867.09.12) 
was not enforced like the current Code(s). It was 
''adopted by the assembly as the best guide to follow 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



35 



for botanical nomenclature'' (A. L. de CandoUe, 
1867,11: 208). 

Within 18 months de CandoUe (1869,06) felt 
compelled to address the questions and criticisms 
raised by **his" Code, including approbation. He 
gently demanded permission not to speak of the 
vexing question of author citation, pointing out that 
he seemed to have involuntarily provoked a kind 
of polemic and antipathy that rarely contributes to 
progress in science. He continued to avoid discus- 
sion of Greek and Latin because it doesn't involve 
nomenclature. I mention most of the issues that 
he addressed in his quiet and civil fashion (with my 
summary): (1) retroactivity of laws (pro); (2) saving 
the name when a taxon is subdivided (pro); (3) 
effective publication; (4) citation of unpublished 
names (ex favored over in); (5) names contrary to 
fact (con); (6) hybrids and cultivated plants. 

Dall (1877.12) released an important survey of 
American zoologists with another Code, including 
the Candoliean laws^ for botanists and zoologists* 
This was not a unified (biological) Code because^ 
when there were real differences (as the different 
endings for family names) then there were separate 
but contiguous articles. Otherwise an article per- 
tained to both botany and zoology. For those in- 
terested, an excellent discussion of the differences 
between the two Codes was published in 1944 (see 
bibliography). 

Saint-Lager was peeved by the Candoliean ef- 
forts to maintain status quo, characterized as ^'con- 
tinuation of disorder and anarchy.*' In 1880 he 
released his reform, aiming to overhaul all the 
''bad" spelling. This substantial treatment (155 
pages, supplemented by 50 more pages the follow- 
ing year) covered most orthography questions (some 
that continue to vex us), applying pure classicism 
or peculiar conventions to change an astounding 
number of names or epithets* His ideas included 
(1) replacing Panax (p. 109) with Panaxus (at 
least we wouldn't argue about its gender) and (2) 
replacing genitive (p, 118) substantives {nemorum^ 
segetum^ .^epium) with corresponding adjectives 
[nemoralis^ segelalls^ sepicola). The major effcc:t 
was to make botanists aware that correctness could 
overturn usage and to strengthen support for the 
Candoliean laws. 

In 1883 Alphonse de Candolle published his 
''^New remarks" (commented on by Asa Gray, 
1883,12), De Candolle reviewed what happened 
over the past 16 years. His introduction com- 
mented on the Codes and Reports of nonbotanical 
groups. The opening part surveyed ongoing dis- 
cussions article by article. The second part dealt 
with new matters, such as nomenclature of organs 



and fossils* The third part (61-76) included the 
1867 Code with an indication of the changes pro- 
posed* 

Kew Rule 

The first mention of what will be known as the 
**Kew Rule" was by Henry Trimen( 1877,06). This 
was objected to by de Candolle (1877.08). Hiern 

(1878.03) stoutly defended it. The first formal 
definition was by Trimen ( 1 878,06: 171). Bentham 
(1878.12) protested ", , . creating a new name in 
order to combine an old specific with a new generic 
one," Jackson (1887,03) discussed his problems 
with what was to become Index Kewensis. The 
Kew Rule: "Our practice is to take the name under 
which any given plant is first placed in its true 
genus as the name to be kept up^ even though the 
author of it may have ignored the proper rule of 
retaining the specific name [epithet], when trans- 
ferring it from its old genus to the new." The Kew 
Rule was opposed again by Alphonse de Candolle 
(1888,10), but supporters perceived it as applying 
the principle of priority by maintaining the oldest 
applicable (binomial) name. 

In January 1888 Asa Gray, the monarch of 
American botany, died, having supported the Kew 
Rule in one of his last papers (1887.12), Within 
months Nathaniel Lord Britton (Joseph Ewan as- 
sured me that the accent is on **Lord") began to 
show the first inklings of a drastic "new" nomen- 
clature, shocking the Old Guard. The Candoliean 
Code was under attack and promised to flood the 
new Index with unnecessary names. Many new 
combinations appeared in Poggenberg et al.'s 

(1888.04) Preliminary Catalogue^ hailed by 
Greene (1888.06) as the **openlng of a new era," 
but attacked by James Britten (1888.09) and Al- 
phonse de Candolle (1888,10) as '^mischievous," 
despite a spirited defense by Britton (1888,10). 



KuNTZE Strikes (1891) 

Late October 1891, Kuntze's new Revisio with 
1,074 replacement genera and 30,000 new com- 
binations appeared, a nomenclatural schism of the 
first order. Kuntze had a very broad view of what 
constituted homonymy, treated 1737 as the start- 
ing point, and that claimed he was only actually 
applying the Candoliean Code. 

Kuntze's work is, like Saint-Lager's, essentially 
forgotten, but is full of examples and repays study. 
It is worth trying to realize what an impact his 
work had at that point. Geneva (Alphonse de Can- 
dolle) discontinued the great Prodromus in 1874, 



36 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



Kew (Bent ham and Hooker) finished the Genera 
Plantarum in 1883 and (Jackson) had Just sent 
Index Kewensis to press, Berlin (Engier) began 
Die uaturlicheu Pfianzenfamilien in 1888, Sud- 
denly thousands of names were thrown into ques- 
tion, most perhaps challengeable (say by locking 
on 1753 rather than 1737) but many were not* 

The major attack came from German botanists. 
In April 1892 the German Botanical Society ap- 
pointed a committee to prepare a supplement to 
the Lois of four propositions (theses). This was 
mailed to 706 botanists, requesting support and 
comments on each proposal (called *^pamphleteer- 
ing^' by Weatherby in 1949-01). The four were: 
(1) priority of generic names from 1752; (2) re- 
jection of nomina nuda and seminuda, including 
generic names based on simple figures and exsic- 
cata without description; (3) retention of generic 
names differing only by the last syllable or inflec* 
tion, even if they differ only by one letter; and (4) 
conservation of listed generic names. 

The results of this poll, with comments received, 
appeared in Paul Ascherson's report to the Society 
(1892*07) and again at the September Botanical 
Congress in Genoa {400th anniversary of Colum- 
bus). Dall (1877.12) also had used a poll but was 
more interested in principles than in what to my 
eye appears to be **damage control/' Also included 
was the first published list of generic names to be 
conserved, another effort to maintain usage threat- 
ened by Kuntze who ( 1 895. 11 ^ if not before) termed 
the list an **Index inhonestans/* 

There was what in retrospect can be seen as a 
passing of baton by the nomenclatural leader. Bri- 
quet, who had included nomenclatural observations 
in his 1891 treatment of mints for Burnat's Flore 
des Aipes Maritimes, published (1892.02.04) his 
comments on what Kuntze had done to the mints. 
Briquet's evidence was cited by Alphonse de Can- 
dolle (1892.05) in one of his last nomenclatural 
papers before his death (1893.04,04). 

Rochester Resolution of 1892 

In the meantime a botanical club (with N. L. 
Bntton) held a meeting within the American As- 
sociation for the Advancement of Science (A.A.A.S.) 
in Rochester, New York, in August 1892. Their 
proceedings (Fairchild^ 1892*09) included the 
Rochester Resolutions (later called the Rochester 
Code), which accepted the Paris Code of 1867 with 
eight exceptions: (1) priority was fundamental; (2) 
starting point was 1753 for genera and species; 
(3) the original specific name [epithet] was to be 



retained unless a tautonym or later homonym; (4) 
no later homonyms; (5) publication of generic names 
either by distribution of printed description or by 
citation of one or more species as examples or 
types, with or without diagnosis; (6) publication of 
species names either by printed description or with 
reference to previously published species as a type; 

(7) later similar generic names are not to be rejected 
on account of slight differences, except in spelling; 

(8) in case of transfer of a species to another genus, 
the original author must be cited in parentheses, 
followed by the author of the new binomial. Fhey 
also approved sending Lucien Underwood to the 
Genoa Congress to deliver their resolution. 

The September 1892 Botanical Congress in 
Genoa was obviously the place where a rousing 
battle could be expected. 

Underwood (1892.1 1) reported on the polyglot 
sessions. Ascherson presented the substance of his 
recently published report concerning Kuntze with 
four proposals. The Rochester platform was pre- 
sented. After the discussion the first three Berlin 
propositions were approved with 1753 (a Rochester 
resolution) for both genera and species. All else 
(conserved names and the Rochester resolution) 
was referred to a committee (Penzig 1893.04?; 
439), which was to report to the next International 
Congress (Paris, 1900), 

Madison Rules of Unmodified 
Priority (1893) 

In August 1893 a group of American botanists, 
meeting at Madison, Wisconsin, decided to amend 
what now are now being called the '^^rules of no- 
menclature" adopted at Rochester (1 892) and vot- 
ed to change ^''Section IIP* of the Rochester Code 
by striking out all after the word *Tetained." This 
meant that a species epithet must be retained (re- 
stored) even if it involved a tautonym or a later 
homony. They also approved ''that precedence in 
the same volume be regarded as priority," a mod- 
ification of the first section. Although the Roch- 
ester/Madison resolution (1893.09) did not men- 
tion types, the idea of page (and place on the page) 
priority, i.e*, first listed species or specimen, was 
used for typification by practitioners of the new 
school until the (1907.04) Brittonian (American) 
Code provided ways around the first '^listed." In- 
deed, the major point of these rules, aside from 
astounding brevity, clarity, consistency, and posi- 
tiveness, was that they admitted no exceptions. If 
you found the earliest name, your troubles were 
over for all time* Also, practitioners had the moral 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



37 



high ground in that you recognized the earliest 
proposer and nothing could be fairer. 

Note that what Saint-Lager, Kuntze, Britton, 
and others (as radicals) emphasized are the rules 
themselves, never mind upsetting usage, which was 
only a short-term consequence (cost)* The Can- 
dollean (conservative) concept was to try to main- 
tain the status quo, never mind some complexity 
of rules, which are really of no importance. Both 
concepts would agree that stability is the goal of 
nomenclature, but one wonders if the interaction 
of these two schools doesn't result in a Code with 
the worst of both worlds: a complex and constantly 
changing Code (trying to maintain past usage) and 
constant conservations (to set aside rules that, de- 
spite complexity, are not maintaining the past). 

KuNTZE Strikes Back 

In July 1893 Kuntze published a second dose 
(first part of the third volume) of his Revisio. It 
had two features, a detailed comment on each 
publication (> 50!) that commented on his first 
dose and his Codex ISomeaclature Bolanicae 
Emendatus in German, French, and English in 
three columns with parallel text* Nothing was too 
fine to escape his caustic and withering comments, 
including the Rochester Resolutions, which were 
far closer to him than any other. 

John Isaac Briquet, who was to dominate no- 
menclature for more than 30 years (like Alphonse 
de CandoUe), readdressed (1894.02) the imbroglio 
with a discussion of eight questions and a conclusion 
involving Kuntze's impact on the generic names 
of Labiatae, This work was important for the com- 
ments on, among other things, nomina nuda and 
seminuda [subnuda], Patrick Browne, Rumphius, 
recycling names fallen into synonymy, still-born 
names, the role of pre-Linnaean documents, and 
infraspecific nomenclature. He also proposed 10 
modifications of the Lois. 

Kuntze (1894.07) discussed several recent at- 
tacks, expounding on Thouar's orchid names and 
other positions of Pfitzer, page priority (against the 
Madison amendments), an obligatory register for 
plant names, ^'once a synonym always a synonym," 
and so on* 

By 1895 Ascherson and Engler were all that 
were left of the 30-member international commis- 
sion recognized at the 1 892 Genoa Congress. They 
put forward six propositions (1895.01), of which 
the last two involved avoiding names that have not 
been used for 50 years, which would become an 
element of the Berlin Rules* 



Americans were showing an increasing disarray 
concerning their Code(s); the Harvard Code ap- 
peared on June and August 1895 with five con- 
servative points. The latter (Anderson et al,, 
1895.08) was signed by 74 American botanists "of 
various degrees of repute," a comment made ear- 
lier about the signers of the Rochester/Madison 
resolutions, \ 

Berlin Rules (1897, 1902) 

Engler and his staff signed 1 4 rules for the Berlin 
Garden and Museum that appeared in June 1897. 
This was translated immediately into English 
(1897.08) and French (1897.09), often with com- 
ments. The Rules: (1) Priority was usually to be 
maintained (species from 1753, genera from 1754). 
(2) Generic names could be dropped if not in gen- 
eral use for 50 years from establishment unless 
restored because of the 1867 Lois. (3) Series were 
to end in -ales, families in -aceae, with exceptions 
for Coniferae, Cruciferae, etc. (4) For gender one 
must follow classical designations or, for later names, 
usage in Nat, Pflanzenfam, Changes ought not be 
made except for notorious errors in designations 
from proper names. (5) Generic synonyms were 
not to be applied in an altered sense for new genera 
or even sections. (6) Priority was to rule in species 
names unless objections were raised by monogra- 
phers, (7) Parenthetic citation of authors was to 
be used for new combinations, unless the author 
himself placed the species in another genus. (8) 
Linnaean capitalization of species names was to be 
used (for epithets derived from personal names or 
names of former genera), (9) Rules were given for 
forming generic names from personal names. (10) 
One must change -ae- to -i*, as mentkifolia^ not 
rnealhaejolia. (11) One must avoid tautonymy (inch 
Klvasia elvasioides) and depart from priority in 
case of gross geographic errors (North American 
Asclepias syriaca L.). (12) Hybrids must appear 
as a formula of both parents (in alphabetic order) 
with multiplication sign between (binomial nomen- 
clature unsuitable), (13) Manuscript names, hor* 
ticultural names, designations in trade catalogs had 
no rights; a printed diagnosis was required. (14) 
No changes permitted to a generic or specific name 
unless moved by weighty reasons such as Rule 1 1 . 
A supplement to the Berlin Nomenklatur-Regeln 
was published by Engler et ah (1902.08.29). 

Kuntze Strikes Again 

In September 1 898 Kuntze released the last two 
parts of the third volume of his Revisio. One sig^ 



38 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



nificant document included is a Supplement to his 
Codex Nomenclaturae Botanicae Emendatus. 

Paris Congress of 1900 
(styled the 1st International 
Botanical Congress) 

By October 1900 the stage was set for fireworks 
but the Congress unanimously decided to put some- 
one in charge (John Briquet) and revise the Code 
at the next Congress. This was the beginning of 
the office of rapporteur general. Hua (in Perrot, 
1900: 475-486) made a detailed proposal to es- 
tablish an international periodical for publication 
of new names, a forerunner of a proposal referred 
to a subcommittee for registration of publications. 

Kuntze struck again, this time (1903.12) with 
Thomas Erik von Post La the Lexicon Generum 
Phanerogamarum^ including his Codex Brevis 
Matiirus, The work applied Kuntze's Code to pha- 
nerogam generic names, had a bunch of cryptogam 
generic names and, in the second part, dealt with 
names above generic rank, all warranting a look 
by those interested in such. 

Kuntze was given little recognition. Stafleu (in 
TL-2 under Post) excerpted Barnhart's (1904.04) 
comment about Kuntze, "Possibly the vituperation 
poured upon all who disagree with him has pre- 
vented his ideas from receiving as serious consid- 
eration as they deserve. It is certainly unfortunate 
that he should regard himself as an infallible referee 
upon all points in dispute and hurl anathemas at 
all who refuse to acknowledge his authority, char- 
acterizing their propositions as 'dishonest,' *inex- 
ecutable^' 'false' and 'lawless. 



? ?9 



Brittonian (American) Code (1907) 
AND Its Precursor (1904) 

The Americans were divided and criticisms were 
being published, such as that by Fernald ( 1 90 1 . 1 1 ), 
pointing out instability (actually inconsistencies) of 
practitioners of the Rochester resolutions. In early 
1903 the Botanical Club of the American Asso- 
ciation for the Advancement of Science appointed 
a Nomenclature Commission, They produced a 
"Code of Botanical Nomenclature" (1904.05) with 
four principles, 19 canons, and separate sections 
on orthography and citations. This came with a 
simple proposal to the Vienna Congress, **the laws 
of 1867 be amended by abandonment of all its 
articles and substitution of the appended Code/' 
This proposal failed at Vienna in 1905, leading to 
the Philadelphia *^American Code of Botanical No- 
menclature" of 1907.04, which should be called 



Brittonian rather than American. The basic text 
was mostly unchanged from the originally proposed 
Code (1904.05), but there were changes in Canon 
15 (application of generic names) as well as in- 
conspicuous additions elsewhere. 1 mention three 
definitions of now obscure terms (metonym, ty- 
ponym, hyponym, respectively taxonomic syn- 
onym, nomenclatural synonym, and name of an 
unidentifiable taxon). 

Weatherby (in Sherff, 1 949.0 1 ) pointed out that 
this Code had at least one large crack compared 
to the ancestral Rochester /Madison resolutions' 
iron-clad insistence on priority: it gave an elaborate 
series of directions for choosing types other than 
the previous implicit recognition of the first listed. 
Apparently the practitioners of the Rochester/ 
Madison resolutions were upsetting more usage than 
they felt necessary and were willing to compromise 
their simple and brief Code with exceptions that 
took up more space than the original resolutions 
in toto. 



Vienna Congress of 1905 
(2nd Concress, 1st Code) 

Briquet tracked down all reasonably explicit pro- 
posals since 1867 to change the code, translated 
them into French, and devised an organization. 
Thirty -eight publications were accepted as having 
specific proposals. This is a remarkable document, 
a key to the past. After all was compiled and 
organized (Nov. 1904), he sent it to the 39 mem- 
bers of the commission with his comments as rap- 
porteur. They were to vote and return all by 20 
January 1905 (31 did). Briquet (1905.03.15) laid 
out all in four columns; (1) original (1867) text, 
(2) proposed change(s), (3) the rapporteur's ob- 
servations to the Commission, and (4) text rec- 
ommended by the Commission. 

The Congress convened in June 1905 in Vienna, 
capital of the flourishing Austro-Hungarian empire. 
This was the first meeting devoted solely to the 
vexing "problem of nomenclature/' They had an 
immense amount of business with potential to end 
or descend deeper into chaos. It is fascinating to 
read how the proceedings were laid out (order of 
business), who had votes, and who did what* For 
example, N. L, Britton nominated Wettstein for 
president of the Bureau and proposed that French 
be the official language of nomenclature. Both were 
approved. Those wanting to speak had to submit 
a slip with their name and position (nom et qualite) 
to the president. Speakers were given five minutes 
(ten by exception) and only could speak twice on 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



39 



the same subject. In fact, this Congress provided 
the model still followed by our nomenclature ses- 



sions. 



The proceedings (Briquet, 1 906) were also well 
spelled out, with a concordance of the 1867 Lois 
with the Rules and Recommendations of the 1905 
Congress, the Code (principally for vascular plants) 
in French, English, and German with the now con- 
served generic names* 

Among the many accomplish meats of the Vi- 
enna Congress were the establishment of the first 
imposed international Code (the 1867 Lois was 
only recommended as the best guide to follow). It 
did not satisfy Kuntze, but he died in early 1907. 
The Brittonian Americans, although they had won 
some victories, were not happy that names still 
were not applied according to types and were al- 
lergic to the new requirement that Latin had to be 
used for publishing names of new taxa, considered 
arbitrary. The Americans, at least those supporting 
N. L, Britton, therefore settled more firmly into 
the Brittonian (American) Code, a rupture that 
would continue for twenty-five years. 

The Brussels Congress of 1910 
(3rd Congress, 2nd Code) 

Aside from the nomenclature section, there was 
also an important section on bibliography and doc- 
umentation. The paleontologists, phycologists, and 
mycologists made many proposals. Harms's pro- 
posals on conserving fern names passed. Briquet 
tendered his resignation but, when everyone was 
upset, got what he really wanted, help. Harms was 
elected vice-rapporteur, the beginning of that of- 
fice. 

The 1915 London Congress was never held, 
because of the outbreak of World War I in 1914, 

Two people were particularly important in the 
years soon after World War I: Albert Spear Hitch- 
cock (US) and Thomas Archibald Sprague (K), 
Each published initiatives that would ultimately 
mesh. In April 1919 Hitchcock presented some 
rules for fixing types of generic names that would 
(1921.04) become the "type-basis" Code. Did you 
realize that conservation of generic names, passed 
at the 1905 Vienna Congress, still did not involve 
listed types? 

Sprague's initiative was to publish (1921.06) a 
thoughtful paper on plant nomenclature titled 
"Some suggestions/' This appeared in the Journal 
of Botany with the editor's (James Britten) invi* 
tation for comments. The paper stimulated a series 
of pleasant and unpolemic contributions from 



(mostly) Americans and British botanists that 
strongly signaled compromise and recognition that 
unity in nomenclature was better than ongoing 
strife* 

In July 1924, Alfred Barton Rendle presided 
over a discussion at the Imperial Botanical Con- 
gress of 13 points about the Code published by a 
committee convened by T, A. Sprague (1924.03), 
One point still seems current, "The Rules are too 
long and complicated." The conference resolved 
several interesting points: that Latin descriptions 
should not be required, all later homynyms should 
be rejected, the type method should be adopted, 
and duplicate binomials (tautonyms) should be re- 
stored. 

In Hitchock's reliquiae at US I found two un- 
published circulars worth mentioning. One is Hitch* 
cock's circular (six pages, not counting cover letter) 
to American botanists interested in nomenclature 
dated 15 October 1924 concerning the practica- 
bility of compromise. The other is by Fernald and 
Weatherby dated 8 December 1924, apparently 
also widely circulated in America, which discussed 
the 12 proposals made by Hitchcock, These un^ 
derlie Hitchcock's compromises (1926,05), 

Ithaca Congress of 1926 (4th Congress) 

In August 1926, Sprague, Hitchcock, and Bri- 
quet showed up at the Ithaca Congress. Sprague's 
paper was extremely erudite and offered the basis 
for a world-wide agreement on nomenclature, com- 
bining the best features of the International Rules 
and the Brittonian (American) Code, It is sad that 
these important proceedings were not published 
until 1929 (in Duggar). 

Hitchcock also made concrete proposals, ar- 
guing vigorously for a '^standard list of accepted 
generic names, each with the species that shall 
direct its application," This would begin with con- 
served names ''but would be gradually extended 
to include also all generic names in use," This 
sounds like a precursor of the ^*names in current 
use" effort, which is still divided on whether types 
should be included. 

A roundtable discussion was held with papers 
read by Briquet (review since 1910 with sugges- 
tions for the upcoming 1930 Cambridge Congress), 
Marshall Howe (*'l don't feel so irreconcilable as 
I may have"), and Merritt Lyndon Fernald ("keep 
Latin"), A paper from N, L, Britton was read for 
him (''nothing is constant but change"). The report 
(in Duggar, 1929: 1782) by Karl McKay Wie^ 
gand, secretary of the taxonomy section, noted the 



40 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



approval of an International Interim Committee 
with John Briquet as chairman, H, Harms, vice- 
chairman, with more than 20 named members from 
all over the world. All nomenclatural resolutions 
were referred to this committee. 



gress* The Cambridge Code, despite its extremely 
short life, was the first completely international 
Code. 



Cambridge Congress of 1930 
(5th Congress, 3rd Code) 

The synopsis of proposals cited 20 documents, 
most typewritten. One of the most important was 
a 203-page document (1929.08?) by "British bot- 
anists," It included Hitchcock and/or Green's lists 
of generic names (then 458 currently conserved 
and 1 ,1 59 Linnaean) proposing that the apphcation 
of these names be controlled by means of the spec- 
ified '^standard-species/' Sprague's list of proposed 
conserved names is the first truly documented ap- 
proach to proposing names for conservation, hith- 
erto a matter of citing competing names and places 
of publication (both in proposals and in the Code) 
and nothing more* 

Briquet's synopsis was, as before, a model of 
clarifying confusion. The multicolumn approach 
continued, but now with only two columns. The 
first column had the original text of the Brussels 
(1912) Code and, in italics in the second column, 
the rapporteur's comments on the proposed new 
text. The votes of the Commission on the proposals 
appeared in a second document '"^Avis prealable^' 
that was handed out at the Congress (apparently 
rare), 

I will not attempt to summarize or highlight the 
debates from proceedings beyond saying that the 
idea of using types to determine the application of 
names (rather than the original circumscription) 
was accepted, and the Latin requirement (regarded 
as arbitrary by Britton) was moved forward from 
1908 to 1932, This ended the American schism. 
There was an interesting discussion (cf. Brooks & 
Chipp, 1931: 544-553) about matters that since 
have come to pass or remain needed, such as 
Harvey Hall's proposed '^International Bureau of 
Plant Taxonomy/* making and distributing pho- 
tographs of types, and producing an index to col- 
lections in different herbaria (Ramsbottom). 

Unfortunately, John Isaac Briquet died in late 
October 1931, and the task of producing the third 
edition of the Code (in three languages) fell to 
Harms, Rendle, Mangin, Hochreutiner, and 
Sprague, Sprague (1933) published the main pro- 
visions of the amended Code with examples from 
the British flora. Rendle (1934,06) pubHshed an 
English text (without appendices). The official Cam- 
bridge Code appeared about February 1935, only 
months before the September Amsterdam Con- 



Amsterdam Congress of 1935 (6th Congress) 

Briquet's death had delayed the Cambridge Code 
which, in turn, shortened the lead time for revisions 
at the next Congress, In September 1934 an an- 
nouncement appeared in several journals {J. Rot. 
and RulL Misc. Inform.) that proposals to amend 
the (still unpublished) Code had to be submitted in 
100 copies by 1 January 1935. (That should slow 
things down!) Nonetheless, indefatigable botanists 
produced 14 submissions and, by July 1935, 
Sprague sent the synopsis of proposals to the seven 
members of the Executive Committee of Nomen- 
clature elected at Cambridge and to seven others, 
obtaining 10 votes. These were used to compile 
the Preliminary Opinions distributed at the Con- 
gress in September. 

Among the submissions processed by Sprague, 
I have had most occasion to consult the 43 col- 
lected proposals "by twelve botanists" that ap- 
peared in 1935,03- I would draw attention to Wil- 
mott's Index Pargatio, listing works that should 
be rejected for various cited reasons, and Sprague 
and Green's provisional list of institutions in 20 
geographical areas to get copies to validate names. 

English now became the official language, re- 
placing F rench, which had been official since Brit- 
ton's proposal to the 1905 Vienna Congress was 
approved. The preceding Brussels and Cambridge 
proceedings had been reported in French, but prob- 
lems arose with the unexpected death of Briquet, 
Harms, the vice- rapporteur » asked Rendle to pre- 
pare the English text since most of the proposals 
had been in English. The French and German texts 
were generated by translation from Rendle's En- 
glish text. Sprague thanked Miss Mary Letitia 
'^Manna'* Green for her collaboration (in fact, he 
married her)* 

Sprague asked that the 1935 Cambridge Code 
be recognized as a faithful record of the 1930 
Cambridge decisions. This was wise in view of the 
great difficulties after Briquet*s death, and it would 
have been even more futile than usual for nomen- 
claturalists to argue whether or not a proposal had 
been implemented correctly- He did ask that the 
Latin requirement date be moved forward again^ 
from 1932 (when the Code had been expected) to 
1935 (when the Code came out). He also proposed 
automatic rejection of proposals with less than 20% 
support in the preliminary (Commission) vote. 

Probably the major battle of this Congress con- 
cerned the application of a combination when mis- 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson • 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



41 



applied, the classic example being Tsuga merten- 
siana (Bong*) Carr, Carriere based his name on 
Bongard^s Piaus mertensiana but applied it to an 
excellent illustration that was not Bongard's spe- 
cies. This is a classic problem of the old circum- 
scription method tangling with the new type method 
(just introduced), not to mention the whole question 
of whether or not parenthetic authors should be 
cited that had so vexed nomenclaluralists of the 
preceding century. 

Hitchcock died on shipboard while returning 
from the Amsterdam Congress* 

Now World War 11 interposed. Not only was 
there no Stockholm Congress in 1940, there never 
was an official Amsterdam Code. Until the next 
Congress (Stockholm in 1 950) people had to make 
do with 1935 (Cambridge) Code and what they 
could find about the Amsterdam Congress (fortu- 
nately not too drastically changed, but the type 
method was new to many) mostly from Sprague's 
summary in 1936 and the Congress proceedings. 
Approved conserved names were listed by Sprague 
(1940,06), 



Brittonia Code (Unofficial) 

In the late 1940s steps were taken to revive 
things, just as after World War L The word went 
out in 1946 that there would be a Congress in 
Stockholm in 1950. In March 1946 the Council 
of the American Society of Plant Taxonomists ap- 
pointed a committee (Camp, Rickett, and Weath- 
erby) to prepare for the Congress* They produced 
the unofficial ''Brittonia" Code (1947.04), followed 
by a symposium on botanical nomenclature in De- 
cember 1947 at St. Louis (published 1949.01). 
Weatherby's paper, **Botanical nomenclature since 
1867," said everything that should be said. 

MeanwhOe, in February 1947, Professor Lan- 
jouw (Utrecht) wrote to several botanists and, hav- 
ing gotten support, invited taxonomists to a June 
1948 conference on preparing a new Code, The 
results were not published until August(?) 1950 
but they had dramatic consequences before. Among 
the Americans at the Utrecht Conference were 
Merrill and Rickett, who were already involved in 
the American initiative. Ray Fosberg was there 
(and attended the thesis defense of Frans A. Sta- 
fleu). Lanjouw agreed to be acting rapporteur ge- 
neraU succeeding Sprague. 

Stockholm Congress of 1950 
(7th Congress, 4th Code) 

Lanjouw's synopsis of proposals was large (255 
pages) and was mailed with the first voting form. 



requesting return by 1 June 1950, I note that A. 
C- Smith received his copy on 5 June, so he did 
not return it. There were only 540 proposals to 
process in 40 hours (4 minutes each). Two hundred 
mail ballots were received and anything with less 
than 25% support was automatically rejected. 

An important event occurred on 18 July 1950 
at what Stafleu (1988.08: 795) called **an informal 
session" (attended by 130 taxonomists), Lanjouw's 
proposals for an association with an office (bureau) 
in Utrecht was accepted and became Resolution 
10 of the Congress (pp, 67, 68). This was the 
official beginning that turned into things like the 
Taxon and Regnum Vegetabile, 7 axon, being the 
official journal of the new International Association 
for Plant Taxonomy, became the vehicle for pro* 
posals to amend the Code so that they no longer 
were scattered through the literature. I would be 
astonished if any working taxonomist does not con- 
sult something in Regnum Vegetablle almost every 
day» be it Index Herbariorum, TL-2, ING, or even 
the Code. 

The first issue of Taxon appeared in September 
195L The first issue of Regnum Vegetablle (ac- 
tually numbered 3) was the Stockholm Code^ which 
appeared in September 1952, barely in time for 
the Paris Congress, The editing of the Stockholm 
Code was described by MerrQl (1952,01), The 
Stockholm Congress proceedings came out in 1953. 



Paris Congress of 1954 
(8th Congress, 5th Code) 

This was the first Congress to have aU proposals 
published in a single journal. The Geneva Confer- 
ence of 25-30 January 1954 was a precursor 
event, as the Utrecht Conference of June 1948 
before the Stockholm Congress. Its report appeared 
in April 1954, soon after the synopsis. Stafleu^s 
report on the proceedings appeared in August 1955* 
A feature of the 1956 (Paris) Code was the ap- 
pearance of a fourth language, Spanish. Another 
was a concordance of Article and Recommendation 
numbers among the latest Paris Code and the two 
preceding Codes (Stockholm and Cambridge), 

It would be useful to extend this concordance 
back through the three preceding Codes, Brussels 
(1912), Vienna (1906), and Paris (1867). Some- 
how this should then weave in all proposals to the 
same text (including rejected ones) and the ex- 
amples proffered. 1 am convinced we would find 
we are constantly reinventing the wheel, if not 
repeatedly raising the same examples discussed 
before. 

There is neither time nor space to contiime since 



42 



Annais of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



we are only half way through and have six more 
Codes to go, the products of the subsequent Con- 
gresses; Montreal (1959), Edinburgh (1964), Se- 
attle (1969), Leningrad (1975), Sydney (1981), 
and Berlin (1987). Montreal was my first Congress 
and I was somewhat distracted by being on my 
honeymoon. My best memory of Edinburgh was 
the '^Bloody Donk'' speech. At Seattle I made my 
first motion on the floor (defeated) and have been 
told that this was the last ''decent" Code- Leningrad 
passed my orthography proposals, probably assist- 
ed by my absence when discussions started, for the 
first time, with proposals pertaining to the last 
articles of the Code. This was the first Code to 
number paragraphs within articles, making it eas- 
ier to cite, Sydney was the first Congress most of 
us experienced without Stafieu in the chair and 
''mice will play when the cat is away." Stafieu 
rejoined us for Berlin (1987), but said that he will 
not go to Tokyo (1993). 

We must end on an upbeat, and 1 can do no 
better than repeat Weatherby's (1949.01: 7) 
translated quotation from Alphonse de CandoUe's 
introduction to his 1867 Lois (with a few minor 
changes since nomenclaturalists can't even quote 
each other without making "improvements"): 
''There will come a time when all the plant forms 
in existence will have been described; when her- 
baria will contain indubitable material of them; 
when botanists will have made, unmade, often re- 
made, raised or lowered, and above all, modified 
several hundred thousand taxa ranging from classes 
to simple varieties, and when synonyms will have 
become much more numerous than accepted taxa. 
Then science will have need of some great reno- 
vation of its formulae. This nomenclature which 
we now strive to improve will then appear like an 
old scaffolding, laboriously patched together and 
surrounded and encumbered by the debris of re- 
jected parts. The edifice of science wiU have been 
built, but the rubbish incident to its construction 
not cleared away. Then perhaps there will arise 
something wholly different from Linnaean nomen- 
clature, something so designed as to give certain 
and definite names to certain and definite taxa, 

''That is the secret of the future^ a future still 
very far off. 

**In the meantime, let us perfect the binomial 
system introduced by Linnaeus. Let us try to adapt 
it better to the continual, necessary changes in 
science . , . drive out small abuses, the little neg- 
ligences and, if possible, come to agreement on 
controversial points. Thus we shall prepare the way 
for the better progress of taxonomy.'' 



Chronologic Bibuocraphy on Botanical 

Nomenclature, With Some Annotations 

The entries in this bibliography are arranged chrono- 
logically to better reflect the subject, history. The bib- 
liography's purpose is not just to support text references 
as conventional Literature Cited, and it has unexpected 
entries such as the death date of some critical workers. 

All citations appear with the date in the format 
year, month. day, i.e,, in increasing degrees of accuracy. 
Incompletely dated publications are usually cited after 
more completely dated publications. Some publications 
give only a spread of months, such as (06-07), {)r days 
10-17, The query (?) was used when there is more than 
usual uncertainty. Dates were mostly determined from 
evidence in the publications or from other sources, such 
as Stafleu and Cowan's Taxonomic Literature IL 

1737.07. Linnaeus, C. Critica Botanica. 270 pp. Lugduni 
Batavorum. [Arthur Hort's translation^ revised by M. 
L, Green, published 1938 by the Ray Society, was 
questioned by Heller (1964.04), Note: As Miss Green 
said, when Linnaeus spoke of specific names, he 
meant the diagnostic phrases in the binary system 
of his predecessors and himself, not the trivial epithets 
later adopted in his binomial system,] 

1753.05.0L LiNNAEDS, C. Species Plantarum . . , , Hoi- 
miae. 

1798.1 L Lamarck, J, B. A. P. Mgnnet de. Nomencla- 
ture. Pp. 498-499 in EncycK Meth, Bot, Volume 
4, H. Agasse, Paris. [Complained of abuses, such as 
Linnaeus*s converting Syringa into Fhiladelphus^ 
opposing the replacement of names familiar to bot- 
anists, '*These two kinds of names [generic and spe- 
cific] ought to be subject to rules that cannot be set 
aside without prejudicing the science that they aim 
to facilitate/' He particularly objected to the generic 
names of the Forsters. He objected to specific epithets 
that are untrue and those derived from names of 
places or scholars (the latter were OK for genera).] 

1813. Candolle, a. p. de. De la nomenclature. Pp. 221- 
252 in Theorie Elementaire de la Botanique , . . , 
Paris. 

1821.01. Smith, J. E. Respecting Nomenclature .... 
Pp. 51-54 in A Grammar of Botany, Longman et 
al., London. Reprinted by Prakash Publishers, Jaipur, 
in 1973. [Objected to corrupt names, *Tuture gen- 
eral writers on Botany, of competent authority, must 
reform these abuses."] 

1832,10. LiNDLEY, J. An Introduction to Botany .... 
Longman et al., London. [Chapter IV of Nomencla- 
ture and Terminology (pp, 454-459) and V Of Syn- 
onyms (pp. 460-462). DC. uses asteriks (*) in syn- 
onymy = good description. "Mark of admiration" 
(!) indicates inspection of authentic specimen — thus, 
"Linn,!, sp. pi. 427."] 

1843, Strickland, H. E, (reporter), J. PniLUPb, J* 
Richardson, R. Owen, L. Jenyns, W. J. Broderip, 
J. S. Henslow, W. E. Shuckard, G. R. Water- 
house, W. Yarrfm., C. Darwin & L O. Westwood. 
Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature 
of zoology uniform and permanent. Report of the 
1 2th Meeting of the British Association for the Ad- 
vancement of Science held at Manchester in June 
1842, pp. 105-121. 

1843.07. Gould, A. A. Notice of some works, recently 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicoison 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



43 



I 



published, on the nomenclature of zoology. Amer. J. 
ScL Arts 45: 1-12. 

1860, Stimpson, W. On botanical and zoological nomen- 
clature. Edinburgh New Philos. J. 12: 321-324. 

1864.03, Gray, A. Nomenclature. Amer. J. Sci. Arts, 
ser, 2, 37: 279-28 L [Commented on the newly 
reprinted zoological rules (Edinburgh New Philos. J, 
1863: 260-).] 

1866.06.01. Koch, K, Some propositions with respect 
to systematic botany. J. Bot. 4: 20L [Abstract, trans- 
lated from German.] 

1866.?? Koch, K. Einige die Systematik betrefFende 
Vorschlage. Pp. 188-195 /n [Secretary?], Int. Hort. 
Exhib. Bot, Congr, London 22-31 May 1866 Rep. 
Proc. [total pagination?] Truscott, Son & Simon, 
London, [English summary appeared on pp. 21-22,] 

1866.12.01. [Seemann, B.?] [Review of] Prodromus Na- 
turalis Regni Vegetabilis. Editore A. de CandoUe. 
Pars. XV., Sectio Posterior, Fasc. IL Sistens Eu- 
phorbiaceas. Auctore J. Miiller, Argoviensi. Paris. 
1866. J. Bot. 4: 387-388. [Objection: ". . . because 
he includes forms that had before been excluded, he 
displaces the name of the author of the species, and 
attaches his own to it."] 

1867. OL Gray, A. An innovation in nomenclature in the 
recently-issued volumes of the '*Prodromus." Amer. 
J. Sci. Arts, ser. 2, 43: 126-128. [Objected to J. 
Mueller changing the authorship of generic names 
when changing the circumscription.] [Reprinted by 
Seamann: J. Bot. 5: 81-84. 1867,03.01,] 

1867.05,01. Candolle, A. L, de, [Correspondence con- 
cerning criticisms of] Dr. Mueller's Monograph of 
the Euphorbiaceae. J. Bot. 5: 151-152, 

1867.08.01. Candolle, A. L. de. Lois de la Nomencla- 
ture botanique redigees et commentees .... 60 pp. 
V. Masson et fils, Paris. [Basis for discussion.] 

1867.09.12. Candolle, A, L. de. Lois de la Nomenclature 
botanique adoptees par le Congres . . , a Paris en 
Aout 1867 .... 64 pp. H. Georg, Geneve et Bale, 
J. B. Bailliere et fils, Paris, 

1867.11. Candolle, A. L. de (Rapporteur). Discussion 

des Lois de la Nomenclature botanique. Pp. 177- 
208 [and] Lois de la Nomenclature botanique. Pp. 
209-255 in E. Fourneri (Secretaire), Actes du 
Congres International de Botanique .... Paris. 

1867.12. Cr£pin, F. La Nomenclature botanique au 
Congres internationale de Botanique. 28 pp. [The 
author citation argument ad nauseam.] 

1868. Des Moulins, C. Lettre a Monsieur Francois Cre- 
pin, 10 pp, Bordeaux. [Reprinted from Actes Soc* 
Linn, Bordeaux 26(4).] 

1868.?? Candolle, A. L. de. Laws of Botanical Nomen- 
clature. [English translation] by H. A. Weddell. 72 
pp. L. Reeve & Co., London. 

1868,07. Gray, A. Editorial remarks and suggestions [on 
the laws of botanical nomenclature.] Amer. J. Sci. 
Arts, ser. 2, 46: 74-77. [Preceded (pp. 66-74) by 
a copy of Weddelfs English translation.] 

1869,06, Candolle, A. L. de. Reponse a diverses ques- 
tions et critiques faites sur le Recueil des Lois de 
Nomenclature botanique^ tel que le Congres inter- 
national de 1867 Fa publie. Bull. Soc, Bot, France 
16: 64-81, 

1870,01? Caruel, T. & A. L. de Candolle. [Corre- 
spondence.] Una questione di nomenclatura botanica. 



Nuovo Giorn, Bot, Ital, 2; 146-149, [Names pub- 
lished with a query.] 
1874.02-04, MtiLLER, L Nomenclatorische Fragmente 
[with six parts,] Flora 57: 89-94; 119-126; 156- 
159, [Motion 1 in Briquet (1905,03,15: 7),] 
L Ueber die Gultigkeitsbedingungen der systema- 

tischen Namen. Pp. 89-94, 
IL Ueber das Citiren der Autoren bei generisch neu 

gestellten Arten. Pp. 119-121. 
IIL Ueber die Autoritat bei verwendeten Zettelnamen. 

Pp. 121-123. 
IV, Ueber das Autorschema bei umgeanderten Gat- 

tungsbegriffen, Pp, 123-126, 
V. Ueber das Ableiten der Speciesnamen von Var- 

ietatsnamen. P. 156. 
VL Verliert ein systematischer Name seinem Rang so 
verliert er zugieich sein Prioritatsrecht. Pp. 
156-159. 
1875.01. Celakovsky, L. Zwei Fragen der botanischen 
Nomenclatur. Flora 58: 2-6; 21-31. [Priority right 
of species epithets and generic names.] 
1876.12? COCNIAUX, C. A. & A. L. de Candolle. [Cor- 
respondence.] Quelques points de nomenclature bo- 
tanique. Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belgique 15: 477-485. 
[First appearance of the principle ''Never attribute 
to an author what he didn't say."] 
1877.06, Trim EN, H. Some points in botanical nomen- 
clature. J. Bot. 15: 189-190. [Supports de Can- 
dolle's position in the published Cogniaux correspon- 
dence (1876,12?). First mention of what will be 
known as Kew Rule on p. 190,] 

1877.08, Candolle, A. L. de. [Letter & response by 
editor, Trimen.] L Bot, 15: 242-243. [Opposing the 
Kew Rule; defended by Trimen.] 

1877.09, Caruel, T, Botanical nomenclature, J, Bot. 15: 
282. [Supported Kew Rule as espoused by Trimen 's 
response to de Candolle (1877,08),] 

1877.10, Caruel, T* Divisiones plantar um propositae. 
Nuovo Giorn. Bot. Ital. P: 280-281. [Phaneroga- 
mae, Schistogamae, Prothallogamae, Bryogamae & 
Gymnogamae.] 

1877.12. Ball, J. On some questions of botanical no- 
menclature. J. Bot. 15: 357-360, [Supported de 
Candolle (1877.08), opposing the Kew Rule.] 

1877.12. Dall, W. H. Nomenclature in zoology and 
botany. A report to the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science at the Nashville Meeting, 
August 31, 1877. 56 pp, (A.A.A.S., Volume XXVI), 
[Important survey of zoologists and Code with ele- 
ments for botanists.] 

1878.03. HiERN, W. P. On a question of botanical no- 
menclature. J. Bot. 16: 72-74, [Supports the Kew 
Rule.] 

1878.05, Ball, J. On disputed questions of botanical 
nomenclature. J. Bot. 16: 140-142. [Balanced dis- 
cussion of Kew Rule, basically opposing it.] 

1878.06. Trimen, H. On a point in botanical nomencla- 
ture. J. Bot. 16: 170-173. ['*. . , the framing of a 
fixed rule , . . . This practice is, to employ the earliest 
published name the generic half of which is the name 
of the genus adopted, and thus avoid making a new 
[binomial] name by the resuscitation of the specific 
half of an older combination.*'] 

1878.09. Mathews, W. Botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 
16: 260-262, [Advocated the zoological method of 
author citation.] 



44 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



1878JL Candolle, A, L. DE. Botanical nomenclature. 
J, Bot. 16: 345-346. [Drew attention to his upcom* 
ing Supplement (1883.07?), subsequently excerpted 
in English by Britten (1888,10).] 

1878.12. Bentham, C. Nomenclature. Pp. 189-198 [in 
his] Notes on Euphorbiaceae, h Linn. Soc, Bot. 17: 
185-267. [Objected to those who have abandoned 
*'the rules that long-established custom amounts to 
prescription , . . /' i,e., when priority should be set 
aside, as for Patrick Browne, but accepted Adanson. 
Opposed "correcting"' original spellings. Supported 
what will be the Kew Rule. Excerpted by J. Bot. 17: 
45-48. 1879,0L] 

1879.04. Gray, A. Review of Bentham's ''Notes on Eu- 
phorbiaceae," Amer. J. Sci. Arts [Extracted by: Bot. 
Gaz, (Crawfordsville) 4: 158-16L 1879.05; J. Bot. 
18: 186. 1880.06.] 

1879.07. Coulter, J, M. & M. S. CouLTtK. Honorary 
names in scientific nomenclature. Bot. Gaz. (Craw- 
fordsville) 3: 61-64. [Provoked by Gilia parreyae: 
discriminates between possessive (in genitive) and 
dedicative (adjectival) epithets. Worshipful of Asa 
Gray.] 

1879.08.01. MuLLER, F. voN. Einige Worte liber die 
erste Ausgabe von Linne's Species Plantarum in Be- 
zug auf Vorzugsrecht. Bot* Zeig. (Berlin) 37: 490- 
491. 

1879.08.01. Drudk, 0. Uber Nomenclaturfragen. Bot, 

Zeit. (Berlin) 37: 492-494, 
1880,03? Saint-Lager, J. B. Reforme de la nomenclature 

botanique. Ann, Soc. Bot. Lyon 7: 1-154. 

L Origines de la Nomenclature [inch Nomenclature 
des Grecs.]. Pp. 1-37. 

2. Reforme des epithetes specifiques qui ne s'accor- 

dent pas avec le nom generique. Pp. 38-60. 

3. Relorme des epithetes specifiques qui forment 

pteonasme avec le nom generique. Pp. 61-66. 

4. Reforme des noms composes d'un radical grec 

associe a un radical latin. Pp. 67-72. 

5. La Nomenclature bolanique est formee de noms 

grecs et latins. Pp. 73-75. 

6. De la desinence des noms generiques. Pp. 76- 

IIL [With lists of ancient Greek names kept 
without change of inflection, with changes, mod- 
ern names with two Greek stems of which the 
last is masculine, neuter, and feminine.] 

7. De la desinence des epithetes specifiques. Pp. 

112-138. 

8. Des epithetes specifiques barbares [or based on a 

person's name, or banal, geographic or recalling 
industrial or medicinal properties]. Pp, 139- 
150. 

9. Conclusions. Pp. 151-154. 

188L04. Saint-Lacer, J, B. Nouvelles remarques sur la 
nomenclature botanique, Ann. Soc. Bot. Lyon 8: 
149-203. 

1. Du genre grammatical des mots ''Lotos et Meli- 

lotos." Pp. 149-156, 

2. De la desinence des noms de genre. Pp. 156- 

163. 

3. Remarques sur le genre grammatical des noms 

generiques d'origine grecque. Pp. 164-169. 

4. Des noms de genre tires d'un nom d'homme. Pp. 

170-178. 

5. Orthographe de quelques noms de genre. Pp, 

179-183, 

6. Des pieonasmes. Pp. 184-188. 



7, Des noms composes. Pp. 188-190, 

8. L^adjectif s'accorde avec le substantif auquel il 

se rapporte. Pp, 191-203. 
9- ''Medice, cura te ipsum." [Corrections to this and 
preceding work J P. 203. 

1881.03. Jackson, B, D. On some recent tendencies in 
botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 19: 74-83. [Ob- 
jected to parenthetic author citations, "corrections/* 
faulty capitalizing of species epithets, and mischie- 
vous author abbreviations.] 

1882.06. Gray, A. The citation of botanical authorities, 
J. Bot. 20: 173-174. [Advocated crediting names 
in Aiton's Hort. Kew. to Alton, not Solander, R. 
Brown, etc.] 

1883.07? Canix)LLE, A. L. de. Nouvelles remarques sur 
la nomenclature bolanique .... Supplement au com- 
mentaire du meme auteur qui accompagnait le texte 
des lois, 79 pp. H. Georg, Geneve. [Motion 2 in 
Briquet (1905.03.15- 7); Motion 1 in Briquet 
(1910,04?: I).] 

1883.10.31. BlJBANi, P. Su di alcune divergenze intorno 
la nomenclatura botanica . , . ed il compilatore deile 
proteste Leggi Prof. AIL de Candolle. 15 pp. Bologna. 
[Objected to the tyranny of laws.] 

1883.12. Gray, A. Some points in botanical nomencla- 
ture; a review of "Nouvelles Remarques sur la No- 
menclature Botanique, par. M. Alph. de Candolle," 
Geneva. 1883. Amer. J. Sci, Arts, ser. 3, 26: 417- 
437, 

1887.03. Jackson, B. D. A new '*Index of plant-names.** 
J. Bot. 25: 66-71 (Jan.); 150-151 (May). [Kew 
Rule spelled out on p. 69. Statement from J. Hooker 
about the origin of the Index.] 

1887.06. WrrrMACK, L. Regies a suivre pour la nomen* 
claturae des plantes en general, et des Orchidees en 
particulier (5'" question au Congres de 1887), J, Soc, 
Natl. Hort. France ser, 3, 9: cvii-cxxiii. [Seen as 16 
pp. reprint.] 

1887.10, Greene, E* L. The permanency of specific 
names. J, Bot. 25: 301-303. [Objected to the Kew 
Rule.] 

1887.12. Gray, A. Botanical nomenclature. J. Bot, 25: 
353-355. [Attacked Greene by quoting Bentham 
and supported the Kew Rule.] 

1888.01. Asa Gray died at 78. 

1888.04. PoccENBEKC, J. F., N. L. Britton, E, E, 
Sterns, A. Brown, T. C. Porter & A. Hollick 
(cOMMrnEEOF TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB). Preliminary 
catalogue of Anthophyta and Pieridophyta reported 
as growing spontaneously within one hundred mites 
of New York City. 90 pp. [Nomenclature by Britton, 
Sterns & Poggenberg (subcommittee), beginning of 
the Brittonian (American) schism.] 

1888.06. Greene, E. L. Botanical literature, old and new. 
Pittonia I: 176-194.1177-183 reviews a Ray 1660 
publication with 48 binomials. 184-194 reviews the 
new preliminary catalogue by Poggenberg et al,] 

1888.09. Britten, J. Recent tendencies in American 
botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 26: 257-262. [Ob- 
jected to Brit ton. Sterns & Poggenberg overturning 
the Kew Rule.) 

1888.09. Sterns, E. E. The nomenclature question and 
how to settle it. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 15: 230- 
235. 

1888.10. Candolle, A, L, de. [Letter concerning] Bo* 
tanical nomenclature. J, Bot. 26: 289. [Agreed with 
Britten's (1888.09) protest about Britton et al. and 



1 *" 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



45 



I 



complimented Asa Gray, about whom Americans ought 
to be proud and follow. Opposed the Kew Rule,] 

1888,10, Britten, J. Translation of Art, 48 discussion 
in A, L, de Candolle's "Nouvelles Remarques/' J. 
Bot. 26: 290-292. 

1888,10. Britton, N. L. [Response to Britten's protest 
of 1888.09,] h Bot. 26: 292-295. [Argued that he 
only did what Elias Fries* Boissier, Richard Spruce, 
and a host of others have done (he was wrong about 
Boissier, who was strictly CandoUean),] 

1891. N0RK5TEDT, 0. Om originalexemplars betydelse 
vid prioritetsfragor, Bot, Not, 1891: 76-82, 

1891.10. KuNTZE, 0, Revisio Generum Plantarum . . . . 
Volume 1-2, 1011 pp. (+ 155 introduction). [A 
bomb with thousands of new names and combinations. 
The chapter "Abanderungsvorschlage nebst Motiven 
zu den internationalen botanischen Nomenclatur- 
Regeln von 1867/* pp, Ixxvi-cxxii, accepted as Mo- 
tion 3 in Briquet (1905*03,15: 7) and as Motion 2 
in Briquet (1910.04?: 1),] 

1891.11.27. Drude, 0. Bemerkungen zu Dr, Otto 
Kuntze's Aenderungen der systematische Nomencla- 
tur. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 9; 300-306. 

1892.02.04. Briquet, J, Zur generischen Nomenclatur 
der Labiaten, Bot, CentralbL 49; 106-111, [Bri- 
quet's maiden noraenclatural paper, what Kuntze did 
to mints,] 

1892,05, Candolle, A, L, de, A note on nomenclature. 
J, Bot, 30: 135, [Noted Briquet's evidence against 
Kuntze's changes of Labiates and avowed great pleas- 
ure "dans mes vieux jours" with the support of 
principles he had always espoused.] 

1892.07? Malinvaud, E, Quatre propositions relatives 
a la nomenclature emises par un Comite de botanistes 
de Berlin; lettre d*approbation de M, Alphonse de 
CandoUe, Bull, Soc, Bot, France 39: 137-142. [De 
Candolle's letter was dated 6 July 1892, one of his 
last published comments on nomenclature J 

1892.07. Ascherson, P, Vorlaufiger Bericht uber die von 
Berliner Botanikern unternommenen Schritte zur Er- 
gSnzung der '*Lois de la nomenclature botanique." 
Ber, Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 10: 327-359. [Four Res- 
olutions. English J. Bot. 30: 241-242, 1892.08, 
Motion 4 in Briquet (1905.03,15: 7).] 

1892.08? Greene, E, L, Dr, Kuntze and his reviewers. 
Pittonia 2: 263-281. [Reprinted in Chron. Bot, 12: 
249-257. 1951,09. Statement by one of Kuntze's 
strongest supporters,] 

1892.09, Fairchild, D. G. (secr.). Proceedings of the 
Botanical Club of the Forty-first Meeting of the 
A,A.A,S., Rochester, New York, August 18-24, 
1892, Bull, Torrey Bot, Club 19: 281-297. [Pp. 
290-292 have the Rochester resolutions signed by 
N, L. Britton, J, M, Coulter, H. H. Rusby, W, A. 
Kellerman, F, V, Coviile, L, M. Underwood & L. F. 
Ward (Committee on Botanical Nomenclature). Mo- 
tion 5 in Briquet (1905,03,15: 7),] 

1892. 11.15. Underwood, L, M, The nomenclature ques- 
tion at Genoa. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 19; 324-330, 

1892.11, Underwood, L. M. The International Congress 
at Genoa, Bot, Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 17: 341-347. 

1893.077-10? Kuntze, 0. Die Bewegung in der bota- 
nischen Nomenclatur von Ende 1891 bis Mai 1893. 
Bot. Centralbl. 54: 353-361; 385-408, 
1893.04.04. Alphonse de Candolle died at 86, 
1893.04? Penzk;, O. (secr,), Quarta adunanza, Martedi 
6 Settembre alle 2 pom, Atti del Congresso Botanico 



Internazionale di Genova 1892. 81-126 [Interna- 
tional Commission to consider four proposals of Berlin 
botanists announced on 9 Sep. pp. 439-440, Pp. 
117-121 accepted as Motion 7 by Briquet 
(1905,03.15: 7). Holmes's emendations in botanical 
terminology (pp, 121-1 24) accepted as Motion 8 by 
Briquet (1905.03,15: 7).] 

1893. Ascherson, P. Die Nomenclaturbewegung von 

1892. Bot, Jahrb. 15(Beibb 38): 20-28. [Also in 
Ber. Pharmac. Ges. 4; 35-45, 1894.] 

1893.06, Jackson, B. D, Index Kewensis. 1st fascicle 
[2nd fascicle in December.] 

1893.07, Kuntze, 0. Revisio Generum Plantarum 3(1): 
clx-ccccxxii, [Codex nomenclaturae botanicae emen- 
datus (pp. ccclxxxv-cccxvi) accepted as Motion 9 in 
Briquet (1905.03,15: 8) and as Motion 3 in Briquet 
(1910.04?; 1).] 

1893.09. SwiNCLE, W. T, (secr). Proceedings of the 
Botanical Club, A.A.A,S,, Madison meeting, Bot. Gaz, 
(Crawfordsville) 18; 342-349. [Pp, 342-343 ac- 
cepted as Motion 10, without Art, 11, by Briquet 
(1905,03.15: 8), also Britton's report of same date,] 

1893.09. Britton, N. L* Proceedings of the Botanical 
Club, A.A.A,S., Madison meeting, August 18-22, 

1893. Bull. Torrey Bot, Club 20: 360-365. [Pp. 
360-361 accepted as Motion 10, without Art. II, 
by Briquet (1905-03,15: 8), also Swingle'ij report of 
same date.] 

1893? Om en falles Nomenclatur i systematik Botanik 
for Skandinavien, Forh. Skand. Naturf. 14 Moede 
1892: 240-255, [Motion 6 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 
7). Not seen.] 

1893- Fraen Botaniska Sallskapets i Stockholm forhand- 
lingar, Bot. NoL 1893: 158- 16L [Motion 11 in 
Briquet (1905,03,15: 8). Not seen.] 

1894.02. Briqukt, J. Questions de nomenclature. Bull. 
Herb. Boissier 2: 49-88, [Motion 12 by Briquet 
(1905.03.15; 8),] 

1894.07. Kuntze, 0. Nomenclatur-Studien. Bull, Herb. 

Boissier 2: 456-498. 
1894.12,28, Knoblauch, E. Die Nomenclatur der Gat- 

tungen und Arten. Bot. Centralbl. 61; 1-6, [Motion 

13 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8).] 
1895,01,15, Barnhart, J, H, Family nomenclature. Bull, 

Torrey Bot, Club 22: 1-24, [Important document 

(see author '^s mature comment 1922.09), Motion 14 

in Briquet (1905,03,15: 8).] 
1895.01. Ascherson, P. & A. Engler, Erklarung der 

Geschaftsleitung der voin internationalen botanisch- 
en Congress zu Genua (1892) eingesetzen Nomen- 
clatur-Commission, Oesterr. Bot. Z. 45(1); 27-35. 
[Motion 15 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8 as pp, 327- 
335), Also in Verb. Ges. Deutsch, Naturf, 2: 153- 
159. 1894?] 

1895.03. Robinson, B, L, On the 'VList of Pteridophyta 
and Spermatophyta of Northeasle^^n America," pre- 
pared by the Nomenclature Committee of the Bo- 
tanical Club. Bot. Gaz, (Crawfordsville) 20: 97-103. 

1895.04. CoviLLE, F. V. A reply to Dr, Robinson's crit- 
icism of the **List of Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta 
of Northeastern America." Bot. Gaz, (Crawfordsville) 
20: 162-167. 

1895.04,13. Ffitzer, E. Beitrage zur Systematik der 
Orchideen. I. Zur Nomenclatur. Bot, Jahrb. 19: 1- 
28, [What Kuntze did to orchids.] 

1895,05? Kuntze, 0. Bemerkungen zum kiinftigen bo- 



46 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



tanischen Nomenclatur*Congress. 5 pp. [Reprinted 
from Oesterr. Bot. Z. 1895(5): ??-??, not seen,] 

1895.06. Robinson, B, L, On the application of "once 
a synonym always a synonym" to binomials [with a 
circular letter extract: Recommendations regarding 
the nomenclature of systematic botany.] Bot. Gaz. 
(Crawfordsville) 20: 261-263, 

1895.07. CoviLLE, F. V. Dr. Robinson and homonynis. 
Bot, Gaz, (Crawfordsville) 20: 320-322. 

1895.07? Smith, E. F. The Botanical Club CheckList: A 
protest, [Published by author?] 16 pp, 

1895.07, Ward, L, F. The nomenclature question. Bull, 
Torrey Bot. Club 22: 308-329. [Survey of history 
of nomenclature and plea for peace.] 

1895.08, Anderson, C, L. & 73 Other American Bota- 
nists, Recommendations regarding the nomenclature 
of systematic botany, Bot. Jahrb, 21 (Beibl. 52): 12- 
15. [The Britton school's loyal opposition, called the 
Harvard Code.] 

1895.08. Robinson, B. L. A further discussion of the 
Madison rules. Bot. Gaz, (Crawfordsville) 20: 370- 

37L 

1895.09. Orcutt, C. R, Nomenclature. Out of Doors for 
Women 3(22): 1-2, [Mamlm)iUaria vs. Cactus.] 

1895.11, KuntzE* O. Les besoins de la nomenclature 
botanique. Monde PL [Seen only as 6-page reprint: 
lays out what Congress should do and hopes to com- 
plete a '*Noiiienclator plantar urn omnium correctus*' 

by 1905,] 
1895.1 L Thistleton-Dyer, W. Nomenclature, Bull. Misc. 
Inform, 1895: 278-281. [P. 280, "To me the bot- 
anists who waste their time over priority are like boys 
who, when sent on an errand, spend their time in 
playing by the roadside."] 

1895. Malinvaud, L. J. E. La loi de priorite dans la 
nomenclature botanique, Congres de Bordeaux, As- 
soc, Fran^. FAdvancem. Sci. 4 pp. [Seen as reprint. 
Gave examples in Alyssum and Carex that seem 
unexceptional by today's standards.] 

1896,02, Various Authors, The nouienclature question, 
Bot, Gaz, (Crawfordsville) 21: 82-91, 

1. KNOWLTON, F. H. Some inconsistencies in plant 

nomenclature, pp. 82-85. 

2. DAVENPORT, G. E, Botanical nomenclature, Pp, 

85-88, 

3. KUNTZE, o. Some remarks on nomenclature. Pp. 

88-90. 

4. MEEHAN, T. Dates and references, and priority in 

nomenclature. Pp. 90-91. 

1896. Le JoLls, A. Lettre , . . a M. Malinvaud. Bull, Soc. 
Bot, France 42: 661-663. 

1896.04.12. BUCHENAU, F. G. P, [Untitled.] Bot. Jahrb, 

24: 648-668, [Comment on nomenclatural issues.] 
1896.06. Levier, E. La pseudo-priorite et les noms a 

bequilles. Bull. Herb, Boissier 4: 369-406- [Attack 

on Kunlze's work,] 
1896,08. Briquet, J. Questions de nomenclature, 14 pp, 

[Reprinted from Observations preliminaires. In: E. 

Burnat^s Flore des Alpes niaritimes. 2: v-xvi.] 
1896.12.01, GarCKE, A. Einige nomenclatorische Be- 

merkungen, Bot, Jahrb, 22(Beibl, 55): 1-10, 
1897,05, Harms, H. Die Nomenclaturbewegung der letz- 

ten Jahre. Bot. Jahrb. 23(Beibl. 56): 1-32. 
1897.06 [separate says 8 Mai]. Encler, A., L Urban, 

A. Garcke, K. S<:humann, G, Hieronymus, P. 

Hennings, M. GijRKE, U, Dammer, G. Lin da u, E. 

GiLG, H, Harms, P. Gbaebner, G. Volkens & L, 



DiELS. Nomenclaturregeln fur die Beamten des Kon- 
iglichen Botanischen Gartens und Museums zu Berlin, 
Notizbl, Konigl. Bot, Cart, Berlin 1: 245-250. [The 
Berlin Code. Motion 16 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8). 
Also in Gartenflora 46: 304-308, 1897.06,01, which 
Robinson (1897,08) translated into English,] 

1897.08. Britton, N. L. [Translation and comments on] 
Nomenclaturregeln fiir die Beamten , . . zu Berlin, 
Bull. Torrey Bot, Club 24: 415-419, 

1897.08. Robinson, B, L. The official nomenclature of 
the Royal Botanical Garden and Museum of Berlin. 
Bot, Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 24: 107-110, 

1897.08, Britten, J. The Berlin Rules for nomenclature. 
J. Bot, 35: 305-307, 

1897.08.25. KuNTZE* O, Levier's Verdrehung von Ar- 
tikel 49 des Pariser Codex, Bot. Centralbl. 71: 302- 
305. [Protests twisting of the Code,] 

1897.09, Briquet, J, ^'Regies de Nomenclature pour les 
botanists attaches au Jardin et au Musee royaux de 
Botanique de Berlin" traduites et suives d^observa- 
tions critiques. Bull, Herb, Boissier 5: 768-779. 

1898.02, Encler, A. Anacardiaceae africanae, II, Bot, 
Jahrb, 24: 493-502. [Provoked Britten, 1898.03.] 

1898.03. Britten, J. The fifty years' limit in nomencla- 
ture. J. Bot. 36: 90-94, [Odina vs, Lannea vs, 
Caiesiam vs. Haberlia.] 

1898.06. Robinson, B. L. Some reasons why the Roch- 
ester Nomenclature cannot be regarded as a consis- 
tent or stable system. Bot, Gaz, (Crawfordsville) 25: 
437-445. 

1898,08,12, C(X)K, 0, F. Stability in generic nomencla- 
ture. Science n.s, 8: 186-190. [Comments on Rob- 
inson, 1898.06,] 

1898,09, KuNTZEt O, Revisio Generum Plantarura, [Last 
two parts of 3rd volume. Part 2: 163-167, 180- 
201, '*Codex nomenclaturae emendatus, supplemen- 
turn'* accepted as Motion 17 in Briquet (1905,03,15; 
8) and in Briquet (1910.04?: 1),] 

1898,10.29. Le Jolis, A, Protestation contre le Reviso 
generum plantarum HI", 1 1 pages. J, Mersch imp,, 
Paris* [Reprinted from J, Bot, (Morot) 12,] 

1898. Greene, E. L. Bibliographical difficulties in botany. 
Catholic Univ. Bull, 4: 62-75. [Presentation of the 
circumscription method for determining the appli- 
cation of names.] 

1898, Levier, E. Le cas du Docteur Otto Kuntze, 12 
pp. Florence, [Satiric, pungent, and delightful criti- 
cism of Kuntze *s arguments and efforts.] 

1899,02,08. KuNTZE, O, Protest gegen die Schwein- 

furth*sche Erklarung, Bot. Centralbl. 77: 259-262, 
1899.05.10-17. Celakovsky, L. J. Das Prioritatsgesetz 

in der botanischen Nomenclatur, Bot, Centralbl. 78: 

225-234, 258-268. 
1899,09,15, Encler, A. et al, Erklarung. Bot. Jahrb, 

27 (Beibl. 63): 7. [In reference to Engler et al. 

(1897.06). Motion 18 in Briquet (1905,03.15: 8),] 
1899,09,20. Kuntze, O, Ueber neue nomenclatorische 

Aeusserungen. Bot. Centralbl. 79: 405-412, 
1899,12, Underwood, L, M, Review of the genera of 

ferns proposed prior to 1832. Mem. Torrey Bot. 

Club 6: 247-283, [Not seen, generic typifications?] 

1899. Kuntze, O, 250 Gattungsnamen aus den Jahren 
1737 bis 1763, welche im Kew Index fehlen oder 
falsch identifiziert sind. Deutsche Bot, Monatsschr. 
17: 55-59. 89-9K 107-110. [Seen as unpaged 
reprint.] 

1899, Voss, A, Nomenklatur und Pflanzenkunde. 8 pp. 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1 991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



47 



[Reprinted from Gartn, Zentral-Bl. 2. Kuntze sup- 
porter. Attack on 1735 starting date used by Index 
Kewensis. English translation by Kuntze 1 900,0 L] 

1900,01 Kuntze, O, The advantages of 1737 as a start- 
ing-point for botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 38: 7- 
IL [Translation of Voss's 1899 paper. With J, Brit- 
ten's editorial "^generous"^ comments on pp, 10-1 L] 

1900.02.20. Kuntze, 0. Offene Ant wort an den Vor- 
stand des Botanischen Vereins der Provinz Branden- 
burg, 2 pp, San Remo. 

1900.02. Kuntze. 0. A plea for my 1737 proposal, J. 
Bot, 30; 47-50, [With J. Britten's editorial com- 
ments on pp, 49-50.] 

1900.03? Kuntze, O. Nomenklaturanfang und Reform 
inter nationaler Kongresse, Deutsche Bot. Mon- 
atsschr, 18: 33-47, [Reprint seen, 4 pp.] 

1900,09? Wettstein, R. von. Der internationale bota- 
nische Congress in Paris und die Regelung der bota* 
nischen Nomenclatur. 5 pp. [Reprinted from Oesterr. 
Bot. Z. 1900 (9): ??-??] 

1900.06-09, Kuntze, O. & T, von Post. Nomenkla- 
torische Revision hoherer Planzengruppen und fiber 
einige Tausend Korrekturen zu Englers Phaenoga* 
men-Register. 39 pp. [Reprinted from AUg, Bot. Z. 
Syst. 1900: 110-120. 1900.06; he: 150-164, 
1900,07; l.c: 179-191. 1900,09, Accepted as Mo- 
tion 19 In Briquet (1905,03,15: 8).] 

1900.08,15, Kuntze, 0. Expose sur les Congres pour la 
Nomenclature Botanique et six Propositions pour le 
Congres de Paris en 1900. 15 pp. Geneve. [Proposed 
putting things off until 1905 in Vienna.] 

1900.09.28. Cook, O. F. The method of types in botan- 
ical nomenclature. Science n.s. 12: 475-^481. 

1900.12,30, Krause, E. H. L. Reductio generum plan- 
tarum. Naturwiss< Wochenschr, 15; 613-614. 

1900. Perrot, Emile (secr.). Actes du h Congres In- 
ternational de Botanique tenu a Paris a Toccasion de 
TExposition Universelle de 1900. Lons-le-Saunier. 

1900, Hallier, H. Das prolifierende personliche und das 
sachliche, konservative Prioritatsprinzip in der bo- 
tanischen Nomenklalur. Jahrb, Hamburg. Wiss. Anst. 
17: 55-64. 

1900. Kuntze, O. Additions aux Lois de Nomenclature 
Botanique (Code Parisien de 1867) d'apres le Codex 
Emendatus, 15 pp. [Reprinted from J. Bot, (Morot) 
14: .] 

1901,03, Fernae.p, M, L, Some recent publications and 
the nomenclatorial principles they represent. Bot, 
Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 31: 183-197. 

1901.1 1 . Ferna[,D, M. L. The instability of the Rochester 
Nomenclature, Bot, Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 32: 359- 
366, [Literature citations.] 

1901. Belli, S, Observations critiques sur la realite des 
especes en nature au point de vue de la systematique 
des vegetaux, [Motion 20 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 
8). Not seen,] 

1902.03. Shear, C. L. Generic nomenclature. Bot. Gaz. 
(Crawfordsville) 33: 220-229. 

1902.04, C(K)K, O. F. Types and synonyms. Science n.s, 
15: 646-656. [Caconyms,] 

1902.08.29. Encler, A, et AL, Zusatze zu den Berluier 
Nomenclatur-Regeln. Bot, Jahrb, 31(Beibl. 70): 24- 
25. [Additions to the 1897,06 Berlin rules. Accepted 
as motion 21 in Briquet (1905,03.15: 8)J 

1902.12, Clements, F, E, Greek and Latin in Biological 
Nomenclature, University [of Nebraska] Studies 3( 1 ): 



1-85. [Excellent exposition of classical practices in- 
volving word formation, examples, and corrections,] 

1902. Krause, E. H, L, Die Autornamen, AUg. Bot, Z. 
Syst, 7/8: ?-?. [Unpaged reprint of two unnumbered 
pages; advocated '" Rubm fruticosus (O, Kuntze Ref. 
d. Bromb.).^'] 

1903,05.22. Hitchcock, A, S, A note on nomenclature. 
Science n.s. 17: 827 828. [Objected to a recent 
case of an author (Scribner) giving preference to an 
epithet in other than the accepted rank,] 

1903.12, Post, T. von & 0. Kuntze, Lexicon Generum 
Plantarum. Iviii + 714 pp. Stuttgart. [Based on 
Kuntze's Codex Brevis Maturus, pp. ix-xli, the latter 
accepted as Motion 22 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8) 
and Motion 5 in Briquet (1910,04?: 2).] 

1903, Borbas, V, Zur Nomenclatur, Magyar Bot, Lapok 
2?: ?-?. [2 unnumbered; separate seen in Hungarian 
and German: concerns author citation of Linnaean 
binomials with pre-1753 epithet-bringing synonyms.] 

1903. Maiden, J. H. The principles of botanical nomen- 
clature. Proc. Linn. Soc, New South Wales 27: 683- 
720, [Excellent survey of then current issues.] 

1903, Noll, F. Vorschlag zu einer praktischen Erwei- 
terung de botanischen Nomenclatur. Bot. Centralbl. 
14 (Beihefte): 374-380. 

1904.01.15, Amann, J. ET AL, (Un Croupe de Botanistes 
Beiges et Suisses). Propositions de changements aux 
lois de la nomenclature botanique. i-iv, 1-45. Georg 
& Co., Geneve, Bale et Lyon, [Motion 23 in Briquet 
(1905.03.15: 8),] 

1904.03. Saccardo, P. A. De diagnostica et nomencla- 
tura mycologica. Admonita quedam. Ann. My col. 
2(2): 195-198. [French (1904.07.31), English 
(1904.05),] 

1904.04. Barnhart, L H, [Review of Post and Kuntze's] 
Lexicon Generum Phanerogamarum, Torreya 4: 42- 
44. 

1904.05. Clements, F. E. Saccardo: De diagnostica et 
nomenclatura mycologica; admonita quaedam. 
Translated, J, Mycol, 10: 109-112. 

1904.05, Arthur, J. C, J. H, Barnhart, N. L. Britton, 
S. Brown, F, E. Clements, O, F, Cook, J. M. 
Coulter, F. V. Coville, F. S. Earle, A. W, Evans, 
T. E, Hazen, A. Hollick, M. A. Howe, F. H. 
Knowlton, G, T. Moroe, E, L. Morris, W, A. 
Murrill, H, H. Rusby, C, L, Shear, W. Trelease, 
L. M. Underwood, D. White & W, F. Wight 

(members and alternates of the Nomenclature. Bull, 
Torrey Bot, Club 31: 249-261 (English); 263-276 
(French); 277-290 (German). [Motion 25 in Briquet 
(1905.03.15: 8),] 

1904,05.31. WiLLE, N, & V. WiTTROCK, Motion au 
Congres international de Botanique Deuxieme Ses- 
sion, Vienne 1905. Nyt Mag, Naturvidensk, 42: 
217-220. [Motion 26 in Briquet (1905.03.15) and 
Motion 7 in Briquet (1910.04?; 2),] 

1904.06.09. Ames, O, et al. Propositions de change- 
ments aux Lois de Nomenclature botanique de 1867 
, , , par les botanistes . , , d'Universite Harvard. 32 
pp, [French 1-11, English 12-21, German 22^32, 
Motion 27 in Briquet (1906,07?: 8).] 

1904,06.20, Harms, H. Vorschlag zur Erganzung *Tois 
de la nomenclature botanique de 1867/' dem in 
Wien 1905 tagenden Noraenclatur-KongreB zur An- 
nahme empfohlen, Notizbl. Konigl. Bot, Gart. Berlin 
Appendix 13: 1-37, [Introduced the use of Dalle 
Torre & Harms numbers for conserved generic names 



48 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



of flowering plants. Motion 30 in Briquet (1905.03. 15: 

1904.06,25. Mali ^f VALID, E. Motion presentee au Congres 
international ile Botanique de Vienne. 1 [handwritten] 
page, [Motion 36 in Briquet (1905,03.15: 9).] 

1904*06. Saccarix), P. A. Motion^s supplernentaires pre- 
sentees au Congres International de Botanique de 
Vienne. 1 p. [Motion 35 in Briquet (1905,03,15: 9) 
and Motion 8 in Briquet (1910.04?: 2),] 

1904,06.23. Arcanceli, G, ET AL. Adjonctions au Code 
de Paris 1867, proposees par quelques botanistes 
italiens. 12 pp. [Motion 33 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 
9). French pp. 1-3; Italian pp. 5-8; German pp. 9- 

12.] 

1904,06? Additions et modifications aux Lois de la No- 
menclature botanique de 1867, approuvees par les 
membres de la Societe de France. 12 pp. [Motion 
34 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 9), Not seen.] 

1904.06. RoUY, G, Additions et modifications aux Lois 
de la Nomenclature botanique de 1867. 4 pp- [Mo- 
tion 37 in Briquet (1905,03.15: 9). Preprinted from 
longer article (12 pp.) in Rev, Bot, Syst. Geogr. Bot, 
2: 1904,07.01.] 

1904,06. Saccarix), P. A. Des Diagnoses et de la no- 
menclature mycologique. Propositions, 6 J^p. [French 
translation by Levier of Saccardo's Latin (1904.06). 
Preprinted from Boll. Soc. Bot. Ital. 1904: 281- 
286. 1904.07.31. Motion 28 in Briquet (1905,03,15; 

9)J 

1904.06. Jaczewski, A. de(rapp.), Projet de la revision 
des Lois de Nomenclature presente j)ar la Societe 
Iniperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 10 pp. Mos- 
kva. [Motion 24 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8) and 
Motion 6 in Briquet (1910.04?: 2). J 

1904.06. Hayek, A. von. Antrage zur Regelung der 
botanischen Nomenklatur. 10 pp. [Reprinted from 
Verb. Zool.-Bot, Ges. Wien 54: 341-351. 1904. 
Motion 32 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 9),] 

1904.06. BrunnthalER, J. Motion presentee au Congres 
international de Botanique, Vienne 1905. 1 p. [ Re- 
printed from Verb. Zool.-Bot, Ges. Wien 54: 351- 
353. 1904. Motion 31 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 9),] 

1904.06, Carruthehs, W. et al. Amendments to the 
Paris Code of Botanical Nomenclature suggested for 
consideration of the Vienna Congress of 1 905 Ijy the 
botanists of the British Museum and others, 3 pp, 
[Motion 29 in Briquet (1905.03J5: 9).] 

1904.07. HOCHREUTINER, G. Observations et propositions 
presentees au Congres de Vienne . . . par un groupe 
de bolanistes beiges et suisses. 8 pp, [Motion 38 in 
Briquet (1905,03.15: 9). Not seen.] 

1905. Hitchcock, A. S. Nomenclaturat type specimens 
of [)lant species. Science 21: 828 832. 

1 905.03. 15, BfilQlfET, J. Texte synoptique des documents 
destines a servir de base aux debats du Congres 
International de Nomenclature Botanique de Vienne 
1905. 166 pp. R. Friedlander & Sohn, Berlin. 

1905.03.21. Briquet, J. Resume du travail du Rappor- 
teur general et de la Commission international de 
nomenclature botanique. 2 pp. Geneve. [Outlined 
what he did since his appointment 17 Nov. 1900.] 

1905,05, Pau, C, J. Secall & L, NavAs. Observaciones 
sobre nomenclatura botanic a para ser presentadas al 
S.'^Congreso international de Nomenclatura Botanica 
de V^iena, 1 3 pp. [Reprinted from Bol. Soc. Aragonesa 
Ci. Nat. 4: ?,] 

1905.12,10. Harms, H. Die Nomenklaturbewegung und 



der Internationale botarusche KongreQ in Wien 1905. 
Naturwiss. Wochenschr. 20: 785-789. 
1905. SCHWERIN, F. VON, Bericht und Betrachtungen 
liber die Resultate des Wiener Nomenklatur-Kon- 
gresses. Ber. Deutsch. Dendrol, Ges. 1905: 93-102. 
[Motion 9 in Briquet (1910.04?: 2). Not seen,] 

1905. Hallier, H, Neue Vorschlage zur botanischen 
Nomenklatur. Jahrb. Hamburg. Wiss, Anst. 22 (Beih, 
3); 33-46. [French pp, 43-45; English pp. 45-46.] 

1906. Briquet, J. Compte rendu des debats du Congres 
international de Nomenclature botanique. Pp, 81- 
164 and more in R. von Wettstein, J. Wiesner & 
A, Zahlbruckner, Verhandlungen des Internationalen 
Botanischen Kongresses in Wien 1905, 

1906.04.10. Greene, E. L. An unwritten law of nomen- 
clature. Leafl, Bot, Obs. 1: 201-212, [Objected to 
using personal names as part of generic names. Mo- 
tion 9 in Briquet (1910:04?: 2),] 

1906.08? Briquet, J, (rapp. cfeN.). Regies Internationales 
de la nomenclature lx)tanique adoptees par le (Congres 
International de Botanique de Vienne 1905. 99 pp. 
G. Fischer, Jena, 

1906. Nordstedt, O. The starting-point of the nomen- 
clature of Desmids. Bot. Not, 1906: 96-106, [Not 
seen. Extracted in J. Bot. 45: 128. 1907.03,] 

1907.01.28. Otto Kuntze died at 54, 

1907,02.04. Schinz, H, & A. Thellung. [On still-born 
names, pp. 101-102] in Begriindung vorzunehmen- 
der Namesnanderungen an der zweiten Aufiage der 
''Flora der Schweiz" von Schinz und Keller. Bull 
Herb. Boissier, ser. 2, 7: 97-112. [Motion 12 in 
Briquet (1910,04?: 2),] 

1907.03. Robinson, B. L. On the rules of botanical no- 
menclature adopted by the Vienna Congress. Rho- 
dora 9: 30-^55, 

1907.04, Arthur, J. C, J, H, Barnhart, N, L, BHinoN, 
F. Ceements, O. F. Good, F. V. Coville, F. S. Earle, 
A, W, Evans, T. E. Hazen, A. Hoolick, M. A. 
Howe, F. H. Knowlton, G. T, Mooke, H. H. Rusby, 
C. L. Shear, L. M. Underwood, D. White & W. 

F. Wight. American Code of botanical nomencla- 
ture. Bull. Torrey Club 34: 167-178. [Motion 11 
in Briquet (1910,04?: 2).] 

1907.12.10. Schinz, H, & A. Thellung. (Circulaire) du 
1 decembre 1 907 relative a la question des noms 
mort-nes. 4 pp. [Motion 13 in Briquet (1910.04?: 

2). Not seen.] 

1907,12, Rendle, a. B. & J. Driti'EN. Notes on the 
"List of British seed-plants'' II. J. Bot. 45: 433- 
445. [Still-born names discussion.] 

1908.12? JanCHEN, E, Zur Nomenklatur der Cattungs- 
namen. Oesterr. Bot. Z. 58(12): 466-470. [Long 
list to conserve /reject with names and dates only, 
no citations, no types, no discussion of cases.] 

1908. Hayek, A. von. (Sur la question des noms mort- 
nes). Mitt, Naturwiss. Vereins. Univ. Wien 6: 57- 
65, [Motion 14 in Briquet (1910.04?: 2). Not seen.] 

1909.03.11. Atkinson, G. F, Motions proposant des 
articles additionels sur la nomenclature des cham- 
pignons, presentes au Ilhrie Congres international 
de botanique a Bruxelles. 13 pp. Ithaca? [Motion 20 
in Briquet (1910,04?: 3). English pp, 9-13.J 

1909.06. 2 L Harms, H. Proposition d'un Index nominum 
genericorum Pteridophytorum conservandorum, pre- 
sentee au Congres international de Botanique de 
Bruxelles 1910. 3 pp. Berlin, [Motion 35 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 4).] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



49 



1909.06. Rendle, A. B. et al. Motion proposing an 
additional clause to the rules of 1905 concerning the 
nomenctature of algae, suggested for consideration 
of the Brussels Congress of 1910 by the botanists of 
the British Museum and others. [Motion 24 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 3), Not seen but proposed C, A. Agardh 
as algal starting point teste TL-2 no. 9067.] 

1906.06? PoTONlfe^ H. Vorschlage zur Regelung der pa- 
laobotanischen Nomenklature. Jahrb, Preuss. Geol 
Landesanst 30: 533-537. 

1909.07. Janchen, E. Proposition d'une Amplification de 
la List de Noms generiques de Phanerogames, qui 
doivent etre conserves en tous ca. 9 pp. Vienne. 
[Motion 36 in Briquet (1910,04?; 4).] 

1909? Druce, G. C. Proposition, 2 pp.? [Replaced six 
names in the conserved names list. Saw only 1 page.] 

1909. ScHiNZ, H, & A. Thellung, Bericht iiber eine 
Enquete betr, die '*totgebornen Namen*' in der bo- 
tanischen Nomenklatur. Vierteljahrsschr. Naturf. Ges. 
Zurich 53: 493-514. [Motion 15 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 2). Not seen,] 

1909, Janchen, E. Zur Frage der totgebornen Namen 
in der bo tanischen Nomenklatur, 28 pp. Wien. [Mo- 
tion 16 in Briquet 1910.04?: 2). Not seen.] 

1909. Arthur, J. C., E. G. Britton, F. E. Clements, 
F- S. Earle & A. W. Evans. Propositions relatives 
a Tamendement et au complement des Regies inter- 
nationales de la Nomenclature botanique, adoptees 
par les Congres international de Botanique de Vienne 
en 1905, 9 pp. [Motion 17 in Briquet (1910.04?: 
2).] 

1909. Rendle, a, B. et al. Amendments to the inter- 
national rules for botanical nomenclature, suggested 
for consideration of the Brussels Congress of 1910 
by the botanists of the British Museum and others. 
3 pp. London. [Motion 18 in Briquet (1910,04?: 2). 
Not seen.] 

1909. Nordstedt, 0. Motion au Congres international 
de Botanique. Troisieme session. Bruxelles 1910. 2 
pp. Lund. [Motion 19 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3). Not 
seen.] 

1909. Stockmayer, S. Motion au Congres international 
de Botanique a Bruxelles 1910, relative a la nomen- 
clature des Algues. 4 pp. Wien. [Motion 21 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 3). Not seen.] 

1909. Saccardo, p. A. Da quale anno debba cominciare 
la validata della nomenclatura scientifica delle Crit- 
togame. 4 pp. [Motion 22 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3)* 
Reprinted from Ann. My col, 7: 339-342. Not seen. 
Proposed 1753 as starting point for Cryptogams teste 
TL~2 no. 9946.] 

1909. Roll, J. Antrage, betr, Aenderungen und Zusatze 
zu internationalen botanischen Regeln in Bezug auf 
die Nomenklatur der Sphagna. 12 pp. Darmstadt, 
12 pp. [Motion 23 in Briquet 1910:04?: 3), Not 
seen but see TL-2 no. 9391 for summary.] 

1909. ST(K:kmayfr, S, Motion au Congres international 
de Botanique a Bruxelles en 1910, relative a la 
nomenclature des Cytomorpha 4 pp. Vienne, [Motion 
25 in Briquet {1910.04?: 3). Not seen.] 

1909. Eriksson, J. Comment nommer les formes biolo- 
giques des especes de champignons parasites? Motion 
presentee au Congres international de botanique a 
Bruxelles 1910. Lund. [Motion 26 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 3). Not seen,] 

1909. Fischer, E. & P, Magnus. Vorschlage zur No- 
menklatur der parasitischen Pilze zu Handen des 



internationalen Kongress von 1910, 1 p. Berne. [Mo- 
tion 27 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3). Not seen.] 

1909. BOTTINI, A. ET AL. Motion proposanf un article 
additionnel aux Regies de 1905 sur la nomenclature 
des Mousses, presentee par un groupe de bryologues 
anglais, fran^ais et italiens. 1 p. [Motion 28 in Briquet 
(1910,04?: 3). Not seen.] 

1 909. DiJRAND, E.-L A discussion of some of the principles 
governing the interpretation of pre-persoonian names, 
and their bearing on the selection of a starting*point 
for mycological nomenclature. 13 pp, [Reprinted 
from Science n.s, 29; 670-676. Not seen. Motion 
29 in Briquet (1910,04?: 3).] 

1909. Nathorst, A,-G. Motions preliminaires proposant 
des articles additionnels sur la nomenclature des 
plantes fossiles presentees au Illme Congres inter- 
national de Botanique a Bruxelles, 14-22 mai 1910. 
3 pp. Lund. [Motion 30 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3). 
Not seen.] 

1909. PoTONlfe, H. Propositions pour le reglement de la 
nomenclature paleobotanique. 7 pp. Berlin. [Motion 
31 in Briquet (1910.04.?: 3), Not seen.] 

1909. TuzsoN, J, Vorschlage zur Regelung de Palaeo- 
botanischen Nomenklatur, zur Beratung auf dem 
Briisseler Kongress 1910 vorgeschlagen. 6 pp. Bu- 
dapest. [Motion 32 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3), Not 
seen.] 

1909. B0R(;rsen, F., L. Kolderiip-Rqsenvinge & 0. 
NuRDSTEDT. Motion au Congres international de Bo- 
tanique a Bruxelles 1910 (concernant la nomencla- 
ture des Chlorophycees, Phaeophycees, et Rhodo- 
phycees), 6 pp. Copenhague. [Motion 33 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 3). Not seen.] 

1909. ScHIFFNER, W. Motion au Congres international 
de Botanique a Bruxelles 1910 (concernant la no- 
menclature des Hepatiques). 4 pp. Vienne. [Motion 
34 (Briquet 1910.04?: 4). Not seen.] 

1910.04? Briquet, J, (secr.)^ Recueil des documents 
destines a servir de base aux debats de la Section de 
nomenclature systematique du Congres International 
de Nomenclature Botanique de Bruxelles 1910, pre- 
sente au nom du Bureau permanent de nomenclature 
et des Commissions de nomenclature cryptogamique 
et paleobotanique. 59 pp. [Recognized numbered 36 
motions.] 

1910.07.22. Farlow, W. C. & C. F. Atkinson. The 

Botanical Congress at Brussels, Science n.s. 32* 104- 
107. [Also in Bot, Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 50: 220- 
225. 1910.09.] 

191 1. Ctx^NFAUX, C, A. Nomenclature horticole. Rapport 
preliminaire presente au Congres international 
d'Horticulture de Bruxelles (1910). Bull. Soc. Roy, 
Bot. Belgique 47: 364-424. [First Horticultral Code 
(pp. 419-424) with 16 Articles, criticized by Briquet 
as contrary to the Brussels Code just passed (1910) 
but not yet published (1912).] 

1912. Briquet, J. (secr.). Compte rendu des travaux de 
la Section de nomenclature botanique. Pp. 43-116 
(with annexes) in E. Wildeman (SECR.), Actes du III'"'' 
Congres International de Botanique Bruxelles 1910. 
Volume 1. Albert de Boeck, Bruxelles. 

1912.09? Briqijet, J. (rapp. GEN.)^ Regies internationales 
de ia nomenclature botanique . . . deuxieme Edition 
mi.se au point d'apres les decisions du Congres In- 
ternational de Botanique de Bruxelles 1910. 110 
pages. G. Fischer, Jena. 



50 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



1912. Choate, Helen A. The origin and development of 
the binomial system. PL World 15: 257-263. 

1914.05. Cook, 0. F, Terms relating to generic types. 
Amer. Naturalist 48: 308-313. [Orthotype, haplo- 
type, logotype, pseudotype, cited usage of monobasic 
for "monotypic,"] 

1919,01. PennELL, F. W. Concerning duplicate types. 
Torreya 19: 13-14. [Credited by J. Ewan (1942.01) 
with the invention of ''isotype" but term used before, 
see 0. F, Cook (1914.05; 309), who cited two pre- 
vious usages in a different sense*] 

1919.04. Hitchcock, A. S, Committee on generic types. 
Science 49: 333-336. [Rules and recommendations 
for fixing the types of generic names.] 

1921.04. Hitchcock, A. S. Report of the Committee on 
Nomenclature of the Botanical Society of America, 
Science 53: 312-314. [The '^type-basis" Code.] 

192L05, HrrcHCOCK, A. S. The type concept in systematic 
botany. Amer, J. Bot. 8: 251-255* 

1921.06. Sprague, T. A. Plant nomenclature: some sug- 
gestions. J, Bot. 59: 153-160. [Opening of an im- 
portant discussion: 12 points to change, many ex- 
amples,] 

1921.08. Britten, L The Vienna Code. J. Bot. 59: 233- 
234. [Defended legality of Vienna Code recently 
attacked by N. Britton, Torreya 1919: 244-246. 
1919J 

1921.10. Rehder, a. [Letter with more suggestions to 
Sprague 1921.06.] J. Bot. 59: 289-294, 

192L10, Groves, J. [Comments opposing Sprague 
192L06.] J. Bot. 59: 294-296. 

1921.10. Britton, N. L. [Comments opposing Sprague 
192L06.] J. Bot- 59: 296-297. 

1921.12. Sprague, T. A. Notes on nomenclature. J. Bot. 
59: 345-349. [Important discussion on orthography 
{Glula renghas/ iumghas example, latinizing French 
names ending in *ier and -lere to -erius).] 

1922.03. Sprague, T. A. The nomenclature of plant 
families, J. Bot. 60: 69-73, 

1922.04, Hitchc(:x:k, A. S. [Suggestions regarding generic 
names.] J. Bot. 60: 111-112. [Advocating types.] 

1922.04. Pennell, F. W- [Comments on plant nomen- 
clature.] J. Bot. 60: 112-118. [Expresses pleasure 
at Sprague's reopening the subject.] 

1922.05, Sprague, T. A. Plant nomenclature; a reply 
[to Pennell & Hitchcock], J. Bot. 60: 129-138. 

1922.09. BarNHarT, J. H. Plant nomenclamre. J. Bot. 
60: 256 263. [Fascinating commentary on the on- 
going discussion.] 

1922.07. WlLMOTT, A. J. Some remarks on nomencla- 
ture, J. Bot, 60: 196 201. [Attack on Schinz & 
Theilung, advocating a *1oose'^ Code.] 

1922.09. BarnharT, J. H. Plant nomenclature. J, Bot. 

60: 256-263. [Response to Sprague.] 
1922.1 L Sprague, T. A. [Response to Barnhart.] J. Bot. 

60: 313-316. 

1922.11. Hitchcock, A. S, [Type-basis code.] J. Bot. 
60: 316-318. 

1923,01. Fritz, E. A, Plea for common sense in changes 
of botanical nomenclature. J. Forestry (Washington) 
21?: , [Not seen, ref. by Dayton, 1943.05.] 

1923.11. HlTCHCtxx, A. S. Type species for the first 
100 genera of Linne, Species Plantarum. Amer. J. 
Bot. 10: 510-514, 

1924. Shear, C. L. The failure of the principle of priority 
to secure uniformity and stabihty in botanical no- 
menclature. Science 60: 254-258. 

1924.03. Britten, J„ J. Ramsbottom, T. A. Sprague 



(convener), E. M. Wakefield & A. J, Wilmott. 

Interim report on nomenclature [to Imperial Botan- 
ical Conference]. J. Bot. 62: 79-81, 
1924.07. Jackson, B. D. History of the compilation of 
the Index Kewensis. J. Roy. Hort, Soc, 49: 224- 
229. 

1925.04. Green, M. L. Standard species of the Linnean 
genera of Tetr adynamia. Bull. Misc. Inform. 1925: 
49-58, 

1925. Rendle, A. B. (chairman). Rules of nomenclature. 
Pp. 300-307 and 384 in F. T. Brooks (Seer.), Im- 
perial Botanical Conference London, 7-16 July 1924. 
Univ, Press, Cambridge. 

1925.07. Hanson, H. E. Codes of nomenclature and 
botanical congresses. Amer. Botanist 31: 114-120* 
[Summary history.] 

1926.03. Sprague, T. A, Standard species. Bull. Misc. 
Inform. 1926: 96-100. [Residue vs, type method.) 

1926.05. Hitchcock, A, S. A basis of agreement on no- 
menclature. Amer. J. Bot. 13: 291-300. [An im- 
portant document.] 

1926.06.30. Green, M. L. Standard-species of nomina 
conservanda. 70 pp. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 
[Distributed softbound 30 June 1926 — seen on trans* 
mittal note attached to BM copy. Cited reasons for 
"types" that were omitted in 1929 Proposals of 
British Botanists. Stafleu (1956.07: 87) noted that 
this "was circulated among botanists and botanical 
institutions before and at the Cambridge Congress."] 

1927.12, Green, M. L, History of plant nomenclature. 
Bulk Misc. Inform. 1927: 403-415. 

1928.03.1, Suringar, J. V, Personal ideas about the 
application of the international Rules of Nomencla- 
ture, or as With the Rules themselves, international 
deliberation? Some denominations of I. Coniferous 
[species.] Meded. Rijks-Herb. 55: 1-76. [Published 
simultaneously with Part II, Volume 56.] 

1923.03.11. Suringar, J. V, Personal ideas about the 
application of the international Rules of Nomencla- 
ture, or as with the Rules themselves, international 
deliberation? IL Some denominations of dicotyledon- 
ous trees and shrubs species. With a retrospection 
and a set of propositions on the Nomenclature-Rules, 
Meded. Rijks-Herb. 56: 1-77, [Published simulta- 
neously with Part I, Volume 55. The 30 nomencla- 
ture proposals are on 67-75, including submission 
of names (prop, 24), The Office of Index Kewensis 
as the standard herbary (prop. 29).] 

1929.03.24. Eriksson, J. Question presentee au Congres 
International de Botanique a Cambridge (England) 
1930, 1 P. Stockholm. [Motion 7 in Briquet (1930.07: 
iii). Capitalize some species epithets or not.] 

1929.03, Mckenzie, K. K. Proposals for modifications 
of the Vienna-Brussels (so-called International Rules 
of Nomenclature. 5 pp. (multigr.) New York. [Motion 
12 in Briquet (1930.07?: iii). A last gasp in the be^^t 
style, brief and clear, of the Brittonian school.] 

1929.03. Rehuer, A. Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, J. Ar- 
nold Arbor, 10: 46-65. [Motion 16 in Briquet 
(1930.07?: iii). Completed by "168," A note on 
names of horticultural variations. J. Arnold Arbor. 
10: 66-68.] 

1929.06.07. Shear, C. L. Proposed amendments to the 
International Rules for Botanical Nomenclature. Sci- 
ence 69: 601-602. [Motion 18 in Briquet (1930.07?: 
iii),] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



51 



1929,07,05. Gunderson; A. An international list of gen- 
era of vascular plants. Science 70: 15-16. 

1929.07.22. EwART, A, J. Additional nomina conservan- 
da. 3 pp. (typewritten). Melbourne, [Motion 8 in 
Briquet (1930,07?: iii), 47 names, mostly species 
names.] 

1920.07. Adams, J. Suggested modifications of the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 4 pp. 
(typewritten), Ottawa. [Motion 1 in Briquet (1930,07: 
ii).] 

1929. DuGGAR, B. M. (editor). Proceedings of the In- 
ternational Congress for Plant Sciences, Ithaca, New 
York, August 16-23, 1926, Volume 2, George Ban- 
ta Publishing, Menasha, Wisconsin, [Including:] 

1. SPRACUE, T, A. Principles and problems of plant 

nomenclature. Pp. 1422-1426. 

2. HITCHCOCK, A. S. The relation of nomenclature to 

taxonomy. Pp. 1434-1439. 

3. HITCHCOCK, A. s, (CHAiRMAN). Round-Table dis- 

cussion: Botanical Nomenclature. Pp. 1556- 

1570. [Papers by Briquet, Howe, Fernald & 

Britton.] 

1929.08?, British Botanists. Nomenclature Proposals. 

203 pp. London. [The titles in the contents (p. 2) 

differ from the titles of the works. Motion 5 in Briquet 

(1930.07?: ii), using titles from contents. Comprises 

seven works with these titles:] 

1. ramsbottom, j., t. a. SPRAGUE, A. J. wilmott 

& E. M, WAKEFIELD [Britten died 1924.]. Pro- 
posals by the sub-committee on nomenclature, 
appointed by the Imperial Botanical Conference, 
London, 1924, Pp. 3-45. [See Rendle (1925). J 

2. SPRACUE, T. A. Proposal for the conservation of 

90 additional generic names. Pp. 46-96, 

3. CREEN, M, L, Proposed standard-species of Nomina 

Generica Conservanda. Pp. 97-109. [This is a 
truncation of the original (Green, 1926.06.30), 
now omitting the stated reason for each choice.] 

4. hitchco<::k, a, s. & m. l. creen. Standard-species 

of Linnean genera of Phanerogamae (1753- 
1754). Pp. 110-199. 

5. WAKEFIELD, E. M. Proposals, P. 200. 

6. WILMOTT, A. J. Proposal, Pp, 201-202. 

7. BURKILL, I, H. Proposal. P, 203. 

1929, ClFERli, R, Proposte di modificazioni alie Regole 
di Nomenclatura Botanica. 1 p. [Motion 2 in Briquet 
(1930.07?: ii). 

1929. Arthur, J. C. Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. 4 pp. 
[Page 1 is reset from J. Bot. 67: 258-259. 1929.09 
Motion 3[A] in Briquet (1930.07?: ii). Pp. 2-4 Mo- 
tion 3[BJ is typed.] 

1929. Audas, J. W. ET AL. Nomina conservanda, 3 pp. 
(typewritten), [Motion 4 in Briquet (1930.07?: ii). 
The Committee on Australian Botanical Nomencla- 
ture was ''appointed at a meeting of the Australasian 
Association for the Advancement of Science in 
1924,"] 

1929. Seward, A. C, et AL. [Memorandum.] 1 p, (type- 
written), [Motion 6 in Briquet (1930.07?: iii). For- 
esters and botanists favoring species conservation and 
a judiciary to solve questions of nomenclature.] 

1929. Fernald, M. L. & C. A. Weatherby. Proposed 
amendments to the International Rules of Botanical 
Nomenclature, 6 pp, Boston. [Motion 9 in Briquet 
(1930.07?: iii). Not seen.] 

1929, Gunderson, A. Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Nomenclature. 2 pp, (typewrit- 



ten). Brooklyn. [Motion 10 in Briquet (1930,07?: 
iii). Completed by: ''lOA" An international list of 
genera of vascular plants. Science 70: 15-16. 
1929,07.05, and '^OB" Genera Pteridophytorum 
et Spermatophytorum Variationes Nomenclaturae, 
13 pp, (typewritten) and dated March 1929.] 
1929. Hitchcock, A. S. Proposed amendments to the 
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 3 pp. 
(multigr.). Washington. [Motion 11 in Briquet 
(1930.07?: iii), 
1929, Oliver, W. R. B. Additional articles and amend- 
ments to the International Rules of Botanical No- 
menclature. 2 pp, Wellington, New Zealand. [Motion 
13 in Briquet (1930.07?: iii).] 
1929. Pennell, F. W. Some proposals for modification 
of the *Tnter national Rules of Botanical Nomencla- 
ture." 1 p. (typewritten). Philadelphia, [Motion 14 
in Briquet (1930,07?: iii).] 
1929. Pfeiffer, H. Ueber 70 neue Namencombinationen 
in einer einzigen Cyperaceengattung oder Aufnahnie 
eines Gattungsnamens in den Index der * 'Nomina 
conservanda?" 7 pp, Berlin. [Motion 15 in Briquet 
(1930.07?: iii).] 
1929, Shear, C. L. Proposed additions to the list of 
Nomina conservanda of the Rules for Botanical No- 
menclature. 1 p, (typewritten). Washington, [Motion 
17 in Briquet (1930,07?: iii).] 
1929. Suringar, J, V, Propositions on the International 
Rules of Botanical Nomenclature in regard to the 
International Botanical Congress in London. 1930, 
27 pp. Wageningen. [Motion 19 in Briquet 
(1930,07?: iii). Completed by "I9A" Supplementary 
remarks, 1 p. Wageningen and **19B" Literature 
to be added in Appendix of propositions on the Intern- 
Rules of Bot* Nomenclature (London Congress 1930). 
I p. Wageningen. 60 species names for conserva- 
tion.] 
1929. Wherry, E. T, A plea for the conservation of 
Shortia as a generic name. 2 pp, (typewritten). 
Washington. [Motion 20 in Briquet (1930,07?: iv). 
1929. Suringar, J. V, The American Code, The Vienna 
Code and the resolutions of the Imperial Botanical 
Conference in London. Will agreement be possible 
in 1930? Meded. Rijks^Herb. 57: I -[43]. 
1930.07? Briquet, J, (rapp. g£n.). Recueil synoptique 
des documents destines a servir de base aux debats 
de la sous-section de nomenclature du V™ Congres 
International de Botanique Cambridge (Angleterre) 
1930. 142 pp. R. Friedlander & Sohn, Berlin. 
1930.08. Briquet, J. (rapp. c6n,). Avis prealable du 
Bureau Permanent des Commissions de nomencla- 
ture sur les motions soumises aux debats de la sous- 
section de nomenclature du V"''' Congres International 
de Botanique Cambridge (Angleterre) 1930. 25 pp, 
R. Friedlander & Sohn, Berlin. 
1931.07. Green, M, L, Rules of botanical nomenclature 

.... Empire Forest, J. 10(1): 54-72* 
1931. Briquet, J. Compte rendu des debats de la sous- 
section de nomenclature botanique. Pp. 554-654 in 
F. T. Brooks & T. F. Chipp, Report of the Pro- 
ceedings [of the] Fifth International Botanical Con* 
gress Cambridge, 16-23 August 1930. University 
Press, Cambridge, 
1931.10.26. John Isaac Briquet died at 62. 
1932.03. Moldenke, H. N. A discussion of tautonyms. 
Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 59: 139-156. [Updated Huth,] 
1933. Spracue, T. A. Plant nomenclature. Bot. Soc. 
Exch. Club Brit. Isles 1932: 300-313. [Chief pro- 



52 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garclen 



visions as amended illustrated by examples from Brit- 
ish flora.] 

1933.1 L Frizzell, D, L. Terminology of types. Anier, 
Midi Naturalist 14: 673-668, [Alphabetic listing of 
233 kinds of types with usage references,] 

1934.06. Rendle, A. B. International Rules of Botanical 
Nomenclature adopted by the Fifth International Bo- 
tanical Congress, Cambridge, 1930. J. Bot, 72(SuppL)- 
1-29. 

1934.10, MOLDENKE, H. N. A supplementary list of taut- 
onyms and miscellaneous nomenclaturai notes. Tor- 
reya 34: 5-10, 

1934.12.12. DODCE, C, W, Proposals for amendment of 
Art. 20 of the International Rules of Nomenclature, 
Ann. Missouri Bot. Card, 21; 709-712. [Proposal 
9 in Sprague 1935.07: 2),] 

1934.12. Sampaio, A. J. DE. La methode de types et la 
nomenclature analogique. Ann* Acad. Brasil, Sci, 
6(4); 173-179. [Proposal 13 in Sprague 1935.07: 
2). Series of examples formed in accordance with 
Rec. X & XI.). Not seen.] 

1934. Adams, J, Some amendments to the International 
Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 8 pp. (typewritten). 
Ottawa, [Proposal 1 in Sprague (1935.07: 1). Not 
seen.] 

1934. HOCHREUTINER, B. P. G. Proposals for the modi- 
fication of Art. 35, Rec. xxx, and Art. 72. Remarks 
concerning Art. 38. 2 pp. (typewritten). Geneve. 
[Proposal 10 in Sprague (1935,07: 2). Not seen.] 

1934. Rehder, A. Amendments to the International Rules 
of Nomenclature, 3rd edition. 4 pp. Arnold Arbo- 
retum. [Proposal 12 in Sprague (1935.07: 2). Not 
seen.] 

1935? Arthur, J. C. Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Nomenclature. 1 p. Lafayette. 
[Proposal 2 in Sprague (1935.07: 1). Not seen.] 

1935? Australian botanists. Motion for conservation 

of the generic name Haussmdnnia . . . four specific 
names .... 1 p. (typewritten). [Proposal 3 in Sprague 
(1935.07: 1). Not seen.] 

1935. Becherer, A. Vorschlage fur die Nomenklatur- 
Kommission des Botaniker Kongresses in Amster- 
dam. 3 pp. (typewritten), Genf, [Proposal 4 in Sprague 
(1935.07: 2). Not seen,] 

1935. Danser, B. H. Proposals concerning the formation, 
spelling and gender of botanical names. 3 pp. (type- 
written). [Proposal 7 in Sprague (1935.07: 2). See 
also Danser, 1935.04).] 

1935. Dixon, H. N, Proposals concerning bryological 
nomenclature. Rev. BryoL Lichenol. 7: 137-141, 
[Proposal 8 in Sprague (1935.07: 2). Not seen.] 

1935. Troup, R. Motions submitted on behalf of various 
Forestry Institutions and Societies, 3 pp- Oxford: 
[Proposal 14 in Sprague (1935.07: 3). Not seen.] 

1935.01. Jongmans, W., T. G, Halle & W. Gothan. 
Proposed additions to the International Rules of Bo- 
tanical Nomenclature. 15 pp. Haarlem. [Proposal 1 1 
in Sprague (1935.07: 2), Not seen.] 

1935.02. *'Briquet, J." (deceased). International Rules 
of Botanical Nomenclature . . . revised by the Inter- 
national Botanical Congress of Cambridge, 1930 [as] 
compiled by the Editorial Committee for Nomencla- 
ture from the Report of the Subsection of Nomen- 
clature prepared by John Briquet (deceased). 152 
pp. G. Fischer, Jena, [English by A. B. Rendle, French 
by B. P. G. Hochreutiner, German by H. Harms.] 

1935.03. Sprague, T. A, (editor), [12 botanists'] Ad- 



ditions and amendments to the International Rules 
of Botanical Nomenclature, 3rd edition. Bull, Misc, 
Inform. 1935: 65-92. [Proposal 5 in Sprague (1935; 
07: 2).] 

1935.04,11, Looser, G. Motion pour declarer ''nomen 
conservandum" le genre Cryptocarya R, Br. et "'no- 
men rejiciendum" le genre Peumus Mol. (Laura- 
ceae). 1 p, (typewritten). Santiago, Chile. [Proposal 
17 in Sprague (1935.09.01: 3). Not seen,] 

1935.04. Danser, B. H. Grammatical objections to the 
International Roles of Botanical Nomenclature^ 
adopted at Cambridge in 1930. Blumea 1: 295-304. 
[Proposal 15 in Sprague (1935.09.01: 2). Orthog- 
raphy — *1eave this question to a committee of bot* 
anists who are more or less competent . . .**; see 
Sprague rebuttal (1935,08),] 

1935.04. MoLDENKE, H. N. Additional notes on taut- 
onyms. Bull, Torrey Bot. Club 59: 139-156. 

1935.04. Sprague, T. A. Survey of nomenclature (1930- 
1935). Chron. Bot, 1: 34-35. 

1935,04, Rendle, A. B. A short history of the Inter- 
national Botanical Congresses, Chron. Bot. 1: 35- 
40. [Excellent summary from 1864 Brussels Congres 
Iniernai tonal d' Horticulture to the 1930 Cambridge 
Congress, including issues discussed.] 

1935.04. Thomas, H. H. Proposed additions to the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. J. Bot. 
73:111-113. [Proposal 6 in Sprague (1930.07: 2).] 

1935,05.20. Kostermans, A. Motion to , . , [conserve] 
, , . Emllicheria & Emeorhiza. . , , 1 p. (typewrit* 
ten), Utrecht. [Proposal 16 in Sprague (1935.09.01: 
3). Not seen.] 

1935.07, Sprague, T. A. (editor). Synopsis of proposals 
concerning nomenclature submitted to the Sixth In- 
ternational Botanical Congress Amsterdam 1935, 80 
pp. University Press, Cambridge. [Known as the Red 
Book by its wrapper.] 

1935.08. Rehder, A., C. A. Weatherby, R. Mansfeld 
& M. L, Green. Conservation of later generic hom- 
onyms. Bull. Misc. Inform. 1935; 341-544. [Major 
source of conserved homonyms, presented with doc- 
umentation. See Sprague (1940,06) for committee 
decisions.] 

1935.08. Sprague, T. A. The gender of generic names: 
a vindication. Bull. Misc. Inform, 1935: 545-556* 
[Proposal 18 in Sprague (1936.09. 101: 3). Rebuttal 
of Danser, 1935.04: important for principles of or- 
thography, Greek compounds, etc.] 

1935.09.01. Sprague, T. A. Preliminary opinions con- 
cerning nomenclature proposals submitted to the Sixth 
International Botanical Congress Amsterdam 1935. 
28 pp. University Press, Cambridge. [Known as the 
Grey Book by its wrapper.] 

1935,12.16. Alfred Spear Hitchcock died of heart attack 
on SS. City of Norfolk after remaining in Europe to 
study grasses following the 6th International Botan- 
ical Congress in Amsterdam. 

1936.04, Becherer, A. Conservation d*homonymes gene- 
riques dans les fougeres. Candollea 7: 137-139. 
[Proposal 1940-18 in Lanjouw (1950,04?: xiii).] 

1936.05. Sprague, T. A. Principle discussions concerning 
nomenclature made by the Sixth International Bo- 
tanical Congress. Bull. Misc. Inform. 1936: 185- 
188, 

1936.10.30. Martin, G. W, The application of the ge- 
neric name Guepinia, Amer. J. Bot. 23: 627-629. 
[Proposal 1940-24 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



53 



1936. Spracue, T. A, (rapp, cfiN.)* Subsection for no- 
menclature. Pp. 333-383 irt M, L Sirks, Zesde 
International Botanisch Congres Amsterdam, 2-7 
September, 1935 Proceedings, Volume L E. J. Brill, 
Leiden, 

1936. Burtt-Davy, J. Forestry 10: 166-168. [Proposal 
1940-22 in Unjouw (1950,04?: xiii). Not seen.] 

1937.04. FuRTADO, C. X. Validity or effectiveness of 

publication. Chron, Bot. 3: 336-339. [Cf. Hochreu- 

tiner, 1938.10] 
1937.06, BOLLE, F. "Varietas typica/' NotizbL Bot. Gart. 

Berlin-Dahlem 13: 524-530. [Proposal 1940-13 in 

Lanjouw {1950.04?; xiii),] 
1937.10, Furtado, C. X, A commentary on the laws of 

botanical nomenclature. Card. Bull. Straits Settlem. 

9: 223-284. [Although sometimes dismissed, the 

author was ahead of his time (invented terms basi- 

nym, isonym).] 
1937.10. Furtado, C. X. The nomenclature of types. 

Card. Bull. Straits Settlem. 9: 285-309. [Three kinds 

of primary types, eight kinds of secondary types, and 

six kinds of "duplicate*" types.] 

1937. Werdermann, E, Kakteenkunde 3: 1, [Proposal 
1940-19 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii). Not seen.] 

1938.02.15, Pfeiffer, H. Dichromena oder Rhyncho* 
spora? Zwei Antrage an den VII Internationalen Bo- 
taniker*kongress zur Stabilisierung der Cyperaceen- 
nomenklatur. Report. Spec. Nov, Regni Veg. 43: 
258-262. [Proposal 1940-23 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: 
xiii).] 

1938.07,14. Rehder, A., E. J. Palmer & L. Croizat. 
Seven binomials proposed as nomina ambigua. J. 
Arnold Arbor. 19: 282 290. [Proposal 1940-20 in 
Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1938.09. Melville, R, Is Ulmus campestn^ L, a nomen 
ambiguum? J. Bot. 76: 261-265. [Proposal 1940- 
16 in Lanjouw (1950,04?: xiii).] 

1938. 10. Hochreutiner, B, P. G. Validite des publications 
(a Toccasion d'un article de M. Furtado dans Chron- 
ica Botanica). Candollea 7: 509-517. 

1938. Clausen, R. T, On the citation of authorities for 
botanical names. Science 88: 299-300. 

1939.01. Furtado, C, X. Validating botanical names by 
referring to invalid literature. Card. Bull. Straits Set- 
tlem, ID: 162-172. [Objected to recent treatments 
of Epipogium and Pterocarpus.] 

1939.02.16. Wheeler, L. C. PedUanthus and Cnidos- 
cuius proposed for conservation. Contrib, Gray Herb. 
124: 47-52. [Proposal 1940-21 by Lanjouw 
(1950,04?: xiii). J 

1939.02, Wheeler, L. C. Additions and amendments to 
the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 
Amer. Midi. Naturalist 21; 526-529. [Proposal 
1940-1 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939,04.28, Render, A. Proposed amendments to the 
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, J, 
Arnold Arbor. 20: 269-279, [Proposal 1940-6 in 
Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939.04. Fosberc, F. R. Nomendatural proposals for 
the 1940 Botanical Congress. Amer, J, Bot. 26: 229- 
231. [Proposal 1940-12 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: 
xiii).] 

1939.05. Alm, C. G. ET al. Amendment of Art, 68. 1 
p. Goteborg, [Proposal 1940-3 in Lanjouw 
(1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939,05, Furtado, C. X. Amendments proposed to the 
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature ( 1 935). 



Gard. Bull. Straits Settlem, 11: 1-30, [Proposal 
1940-9 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939.06.15. Patrick, R. A suggested starting point for 
the nomenclature of diatoms. 2 pp, Philadelphia, 
[Proposal 1940-7 in Lanjouw {1950,04?: xiii).] 

1939.06.17. De Toni, G, Vorschlage fiir dem Interna- 
tionalen botanischen Kongress in Stockholm 1940 
betreffend den Art. 38 der Inter nationaler Regeln 
der botanischen Nomenklatur. 1 p, Brescia. [Proposal 
1940-2 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii),] 

1939.06. Handel^Mazzetti, H. Uber Mangel und Un- 
klarheiten in den botanischen Nomenklaturregeln. Re- 
pert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 46: 82-94. [Proposal 
1940-10 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii),] 

1939.06. Dixon, H. H. International bryological nomen- 
clature. J. Bot. 77: 176-178, [Proposal 1940-17 
in Lanjouw (1950,04?: xiii).] 

1939.07? Allan, H. H. The nomenclature of hybrids, 
Chron. Bot. 5(2/3): 205-209. [Proposal 1940-4 in 
Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939,07?. Spracue, T. A, The nomenclature of hybrids. 
Chron. Bot. 5(2/3); 209-212. 

1939.10.06. Bullock, A. A, Actinocheita, Bull, Misc. 
Inform. 1939: 337-339. [Proposal 1940-28 in Lan- 
jouw (1950,04?: xiii).] 

1939.10. Sprague, T, A. (editor). Proposed additions 
and amendments to the International Rules of Bo- 
tanical Nomenclature [by eight British botanists,] Bull. 
Misc. Inform. 1939: 317-334, [Proposal 1940-14 
in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii). Binary combinations 
under Anonymos published by Walter (1788).] 

1939. Gleason, H, A, Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature as 
adopted at Cambridge, 1930. 1 p. New York. [Pro- 
posal 1940-11 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939? Hara, H. Reject Heleniopis as nomen confusum. 
1 p. [Proposal 1940-25 in Lanjouw (1950.04?; xiii).] 

1939? Houtzagers, G. Nomina ambigua proposals about 
the botanical names of some poplars. 10 pp. (type- 
written). Arnhem, [Proposal 1940-26 in Lanjouw 
(1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939? HouTZAGERS, G. Proposal [to reject Popalus can- 
adensis Moench as a nomen ambiguum]. 1 p. (type- 
written). Arnhem [Proposal 1950-27 in Lanjouw 
(1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939. HOCHREUTINER, B. P, G, [Typewritten] [Proposal 
1940-8 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii). Not seen.] 

1940.05. Mansfeld, R. Probleme der Nomenklaturre- 
geln. Repert. Spec, Nov. Regni Veg. Beih, 121: 4- 
13, 

1940.06. Sprague, T. A, Additional nomina generica 
conservanda (Pteridophyta and Phanerogamae), BuU. 
Misc. Inform. 1940: 81-134. [Approved conserved 
names scheduled for the Amsterdam (4th edition) 
Code.] 

1941.09? Smith, A. C. The principle of priority in bio* 
logical nomenclature. Chron. Bot, 9: 114-119. 

1942.01. EwAN, J, Isotype vs. co-type as designators for 
duplicate type. Chron, Bot. 7: 8-9, [A definitive 
statement in favor of isotype.] 

1942?, 12, Harlow, ?. Scientific names and their va- 
garies. J, Forest. (Washington) 40: [Not seen, ad- 
dressed by Dayton, 1943.05.] 

1943. Blake, S, F. Cotype, syntype, and other terms 
referring to type material. Rhodora 45: 481-485, 

1943.05. Dayton, W. A. Should plant taxonomists be 
controlled by an open season or otherwise, or alto- 



54 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



g€ther suppressed? J, Forest. (Washington) 41 : 369- 

373, [Comment on Hartow, 1942?. 12, and Fritz, 

1923.] 
1943.12. Beetle, A. A, Specific decapitalization. Chron. 

Bot. 7: 380- 38 L [In favor.] 
1944.12* A discussion on the dififerences in observance 

between zoological and botanical nomenclature. Proc. 

Linn, Soc. London 156: 126-146. 

L SPRAGlJE, M. L. (m. L. Green), The case for the 
botanists. 126-134. 

2. HEMMING, F, The case for the zoologists. Pp. 134- 

137, 

3. wiLMOTT, A, J. A criticism. Pp, 138-140. 

4. TREWAVAS, E. Comments. Pp. 141. 

5. SPRAGtJE, T, A, Comments. Pp. 141-142, 
6* NEAVE, s. Comments, p. 142. 

7. LASZLO, p. DE. A summing-up. Pp. 142-146, 

1945.10? Smith, A. C. The principle of priority in bio- 
logical nomenclature. Chron. Bot. 9: 1 14-1 19. [Op- 
posed nomina specifica conservanda. ''If it were 
not for this list of about 850 conserved [generic] 
names thousands upon thousands of specific binomials 
would be invalidated.'"] 

1945, HylaNDER, N. Nomenklatorische und systema- 
tische Studien Qber nordische Gefasspflanzen. Upp- 
sala Univ. Arsskr. 7: 1-337, 

1946.07. Bailey, L. H, Species names with capital letters 
[and] observations on binomials. Centes Herbarum 
7: 168- 174. [For capitalizing, explains that the com- 
ma between binomial and author means "of," opposes 
infraspecific names.] 

1947.04.01. Camp, W. H., H, W. RiCKETT & C, A. 
Weatherby, International Rules of Botanical No- 
menclature . . , revised by the International Congress 
of Amsterdam, 1935, Brittonia 6: 1-120. [The Brit- 
tonia Code.] 

1947,04, GleaSON, H, A. On the preservation of well- 
known binomials. Phytologia 2: 201-213. [Part he* 
nocissus vitacea, not inserta; Nelumho lalea^ not 
pentapetala; Lalhynis maritimus^ not japoniciiSr 
Acer saccharum^ not saccharophorum.] 

1947.10, Airy Shaw, H, K, Typification of new names 
derived from persons or places. Kew Bull. [1]: 35- 
39, [How would author deal with Asclepias syriaca?] 

1948,03, Buchanan, R. E., R. St. John-Bkixiks & R, 

S. Breed, International Bacteriological Code of No- 
menclature. J. Bacteriol. 55: 287-306, 

1948.03. RlCKElT, H, W, Citation of author\s names in 
taxonomy. Bull Torrey Bot. Club 75: 172-174. [In 
vs, ex vs. apud.] 

1948.04. Little, E. L, A proposal to stabilize plant names, 
Phytologia 2: 451-456, [Nomen extinctum — un- 
used for 100 years, upping the ante from the Berlin 
code {1897.06) of unused for 50 years.] 

1948.07,15, Merrill, E, D, NeoUtsea (Bentham) Mer- 
rill, nomen conservandum propositum, J, Arnold Ar- 
bor, 29: 198-201. [Proposal 1950-2 in Lanjouw 
(1950.04?: xiv,)] 

1948.07.15. Merrill, E, D. Nomenclatural notes on 
RafinesqueV published papers 1804-1840. J. Arnold 
Arbor, 29: 202-214, [Proposal 1950-3 in Lanjouw 
(1950.04?: xvi).] 

1948. Lanjouw, J. (editor). [Proposals of Dutch bota- 
nists]* 13 pp. (typewritten), [Proposal 1950-5 in 
Lanjouw (1950,04?: xiv). Lam (p. 1) Introduced the 
word ''taxon/' equivalent to German "'Sippe/'] 

1949.01. Sherff, E. E, (chairman). Symposium on bo- 



tanical nomenclature. Amer. J. Bot. 36: 1-32. Com- 
prising: 

1. SHERFF, E. E, Introduction. Pp, 1-4. 

2. weatherby, C, a. Botanical Nomenclature since 

1867, Pp. 5-7, 

3. BLAKE, S, F. Byways of nomenclature. Pp. 8-9. 

[Linnaeus, Rafinesque, Saint- Lager, Bubani.] 

4. RICKETT, H. w. An editor's point of view. Pp, 10- 

13. 

5. MERRILL, E, D. Adventures in locating validly pub- 

lished but unlisted binomials. Pp. 14-19. 

6. PENNELL, F, W. Toward a simple and clear no- 

menclature, Pp, 19-22, 

7. BATLEY, L. H, Problems in taxonomy. Pp. 22-24, 

8. RGSEDAHL, C. O. The problem of subspecific cat- 

egories. Pp. 24-27. 

9. JUST, T. The nomenclature of fossil plants. Pp. 

zo— 32. 

1949.06.25, Camp, W. H., H. W, Rickett & C. A. 
Weatherby. Proposed changes in the International 
Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, Brittonia 7: 1-51. 
[Proposal 1950-62 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xv). 
Sponsored by a group of 55 taxonomists.] 

1949.10. Smith, A, C. A legislated nomenclature for 
species of plants? Amer, J, Bot, 36: 624-626, [Op- 
posed,] 

1949.12. FurtadO, C. X. A further commentary on the 
rules of nomenclature. Gard. Bull. Singapore 12: 
31 1-377. [Proposal 1950-83 in Lanjouw (1950.04?; 
xvi). Discriminated between binary and binomial 
names,] 

1949.12? ManSFELD, R. Die Technik der wissenschaft- 
lichen Pflanzenbenennung: Einfuhrung in die Inter- 
nationalen Regeln der botanischen Nomenklatur. 1 16 
pp, Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. 

1949, Troupin, G, La terminologie des types en botanique 
systematique. Bull, Soc. Roy. Bot, Belg. 82: .57-66. 

1950,04? Lanjouw, J, (acting rapp. GfeN.), Synopsis of 
proposals concerning the International Rules of Bo- 
tanical Nomenclature submitted to the Seventh In- 
ternational Botanical Congress, Stockholm, 1950, 
255 pp. [550 proposals,] 

1950.05, Polunin, N, Specific and trivial decapitaliza- 
tion. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 77: 214-221. [Impor- 
tant statement pro decapitalization.] 

1950.06, HjELMQViST, H. The conservation of species 
names [invited responses], Bot. Not. 1950: 328- 
347, 

1. RICKETT, H, w. Pp. 328-329, [Opposed.] 

2. GRAM, K. Pp, 330-332, [Pro, needed for stabil- 

ity,] 

3. CAMP, W. H. Pp. 332-336. [Unrealistic without 

staff.] 

4. JANCHEN, E. 

limited,] 

5. GILMOUR, J, S. L, Pp. 341-343, [Yes but must 

be limited.] 

6. BAEHNi, C. Pp, 343-346. [Conservation of species 

— sea serpent.] 

7. SKOTTSBERG, c. Pp, 346-347. [Fix the rules then 

no name changes.] 

1950.07, Rickett, H. W. & W, H. Camp, The appli- 
cation and use of botanical names. Bull. Torrey Bot. 
Club 77: 245-261. [Residue of circumscription 
method still in Code vs. type method.] 

1950.07.18. International Association for Plant Taxon- 
omy born by resolution of the Stockholm Congress, 



Pp. 336-340. [Yes but must be 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



55 



1950.08? Lanjouw, J. (editor). Botanical nomenclature 
and taxonomy, a symposium organized by the In- 
ternational Union of Biological Sciences with support 
of UNESCO at Utrecht, the Netherlands, June 14- 
19, 1948. Chron. Bot, 12(1/2): 1-87. comprising: 

1. SPRACUE, M. L. Minutes of the Utrecht Confer- 

ence* Pp, 9-53. 

2, LANjouw, J. On the need for an international 

society of plant taxonomists. Pp, 55-57. 

3. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR NOMENCLATURE. 

Pp. 59-62. 
4. SPRACUE, T. A. International Rules of Botanical 
Nomenclature Supplement embodying the al- 
terations made at the Sixth International Bo- 
tanical Congress, Amsterdam, 1935. Pp. 65- 
77; Appendix II, pp. 79-80; Appendix III, pp. 
81-83; Index of plant names, pp. 85-87. 

1950.1 L Wit, H. C. D. DE. Changes in the International 
Rules of Botanical Nomenclature made by the 7th 
Int. Bot. Congress at Stockholm, An unofficial review. 
FL Males Bull. 1{7): 197-231. 

1951.09. Lanjouw, J. The Stockholm 1950 Rules of 
Botanical Nomenclature [with] nomenclature com- 
mittees appointed at Stockholm. Taxon I: 7-11. 

1952.01. Merrill, E. D, The Cheltenham Conference 
on botanical nomenclature. Taxon 1: 35-36. [Edi- 
torial committee.] 

1952.09. Lanjouw, J, et AL. (editors). International 
Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the sev- 
enth International Botanical Congress, Stockholm, 
July 1950. Regnum Veg. 3: 1-228. 

1953. Lanjouw, J. (raff. Ctn.y Nomenclature [Section] 
report. Pp. 457-550 in H. Osvald & E. Aberg 
(editors). Proceedings of the Seventh International 
Botanical Congress, Stockholm, July 12-20, 1950. 
Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm. [Reprinted in Reg- 
num Veg, 3: 457-550. 1954.01.] 

1953.07-09. Croizat, L. On nomenclature: The '*type- 
method." Taxon 2: 105-107; 124-130. [Classic 
polemic against typification and autonyms.] 

1953.09. Rickett, H, W. Expediency vs. priority in 
nomenclature. Taxon 2: 1 17-124, [Historical survey 
with bibliogaphy.] 

1954.03 Lanjouw, J. Recueil synoptique des propositions 
concernant le Code International de la Nomenclature 
botanique soumises a la Section de Nomenclature du 
Huitieme Congres International de Botanique Paris, 
1954. Regnum Veg. 4: 1-124. [387 proposals.] 

1954,04. Stafleu, F. A, Report [on] The Geneve Con- 
ference on botanical nomenclature and Genera Plan- 
tarum organized by the Botanical Section of the In- 
ternational Union of Biological Sciences 25-30 
January 1954. Regnum Veg, 5: 1-59. 

1954.06. [Stafleu, F. A.] Preliminary mail vote. Taxon 
3: 157-162. 

1954.09. [Stafleu, F, A.] [Decisions taken at] Vlllth 
International Botanical Congress, Paris, 1954, No- 
menclature Section. Taxon 3: 184^196, 

1954.11. Stafleu, F. A. Nomenclature at the Paris Con- 
gress. Taxon 3: 217-225. 

1955.08. Stafleu, F. A. Huitieme Congres International 
de Botanique, Section Nomenclature. Taxon 4: 121- 
177. 

1956.07. Stafleu, F. A. Nomenclatural conservation in 
the phanerogams, Taxon 5: 85-95, [Historical re- 
view about conserved generic names,] 

1956.10? Lanjouw, J. et al. International Code of Bo- 



tanical Nomenclature adopted by the Eighth Inter- 
national Botanical Congress, Paris, July 1954. Reg- 
num Veg. 8: 1-338* 

1957.04. Smith, A. C. Fifty years of botanical nomen- 
clature. Brittonia 9: 2-8. [History.] 

1959.01. Lanjouw, J. (rapP.). Synopsis of proposals con- 
cerning the International Code of Botanical Nomen- 
clature submitted to the Ninth International Botanical 
Congress, Montreal^ 1959. Regnum Veg. 14: 1- 
84. [333 proposals.] 

1960.12. Lanjouw, J. IXth International Botanical Con- 
gress, Nomenclature Section, report presented by the 
Bureau of Nomenclature, Regnum Veg. 20: 1-1 16. 
Reprinted from Proc. IX Int. Bot. Congr, Montreal 
1959 3: 27-116. 

1961.01. Smith, A. C. The 1960 meeting of the Editorial 
Committee of the [Montreal] International Code of 
Botanical Nomenclature. Taxon 10: 8-13. 

1961.12. Lanjouw, I. et al. (editors). International 
Code of ESotanical Nomenclature adopted by the Ninth 
International Botanical Congress, Montreal, August 
1959. Regnum Veg. 23; 1-372. 

1964.02. Lanjouw, J. & F. A. Stafleu. Synopsis of 
proposals concerning the International Code of Bo- 
tanical Nomenclature submitted to the Tenth Inter- 
national Botanical Congress Edinburgh — 1964, Reg- 
num Veg. 30: 1-68. [337 proposals.] 

1964.04. Heller, J. L. The early history of botanical 
nomenclature. Iluntia 1; 33-70. [Linnaean period: 
credited Linnaeus for inventing trivial names [epi- 
thets] that led, after his death, to binomial nomen- 
clature. Attributed invention to Linnaeus*s struggle 
to reform book citation.] 

1964.06. [Stafleu, F. A.?] Nomenclature proposals Xth 
Congress: preliminary vote. Taxon 13: 183-187. 

1964.07. Stafleu, F. A, (.secr. gen. comm.). Preliminary 
report on the stabilization of names of plants of eco- 
nomic importance, Regnum V^eg. 36: 1-36. 

1964.11. Stafleu, F. A. Nomenclature at Edinburgh. 
Taxon 13: 273-282. 

1965.05. Voss, E. G. On citing the names of publishing 
authors. Taxon 14: 154-160. [In vs. ex/ 

1966.11. Stafleu, F. A, Tenth International Botanical 
Congress, Edinburgh, 1964: Nomenclature Section 
[proceedings,] Regnum Veg. 44: 1-75. 

1966.12. Lanjouw, J. et al. (editors). International 
Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Tenth 
International Botanical Congress Edinburgh, August 
1964. Regnum Veg. 46: 1-402. 

1967.11. Dandy, J. E. Index of generic names of vascular 
plants 1753-1774. Regnum Veg. 51: 1-130. 

1968.06. McVaugh, R., R. Ross & F. A. Stafleu. An 
annotated glossary of botanical nomenclature. Reg- 
num Veg. 56: 1-31. 

1969.02. Stafleu, F. A. (raff, gen.) & E. G. Voss 

(vice-RaPP.). Synopsis of proposals on botanical no- 
menclature, Seattle 1969. Regnum Veg. 60; 1-124 
(including appendices pp. 42-124). [284 proposals.] 

1907.02. Stafleu, F. A. Nomenclature at Seattle. Taxon 
19: 36-42. 

1970.02. Moore, H, E., F. A. Stafleu & E. G. Voss. 
XI International Botanical Congress: final mail vote 
and Congress action on nomenclature proposals. Tax- 
on 19: 43-51. 

1972-02. Stafleu, F. A. (rafp. g6n,). & E. G. Voss 

(viCE-RAPP.). Report on botanical nomenclature, Se- 
attle 1969. Regnum Veg. 81: 1-133. 



56 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



1972.03. Stafleu, F, A, (chairman) & E. G. Voss(secr.). 
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopt- 
ed by the Eleventh International Botanical Congress 
Seattle, August 1969, Regnum Veg. 82: 1-426. 

1975.02. Stafleu, F. A. (rapp. ceN.)* & E. G. Voss 
(VICE-RAPP,)* Synopsis of proposals on botanical no- 
menclature, Leningrad, 1975, Taxon 24: 201-154, 
[152 proposals,] 

1978.04? Stafleu, F. A. (raff, GfeN.)- & E. G. Voss 

(VICE-RAPP.). International Code of Botanical No- 
menclature adopted by the Twelfth International Bo- 
tanical Congress, Leningrad, July 1975, Regnum 
Veg. 97: 1-457. 

1979.12? Voss, E. G. Section L Nomenclature. Pp. 129- 
186 in D. V. Lebedev et al. (editors), Proceedings, 
XII International Botanical Congress, Leningrad, 3- 
10 July 1975. Leningrad, Nauka. 

1981.02. Voss, E. G. (rapp. g6n0 & W. Greuter 

(VICE-RAPP,), Synopsis of proposals on botanical no- 
menclature, Sydney, 198L Taxon 30; 95-293. [210 
proposals.] 
1982*02. Voss, E. G, Nomenclature at Sydney, Taxon 
31: 151-153. 

1982.06. Greuter, W. (vice-rapp.) & E. G. Voss 



(RAPF.-cfeN.). Report on botanical nomenclature — 
Sydney 198L Englera 2: 1-124. 
1983,10, Voss, E. G. (rapp. cfcN,) & W. Greuter 
(vice-Rapp.), Internationa! Code of Botanical No- 
menclature adopted by the Thirteenth International 
Botanical Congress, Sydney, August 198L Regnum 
Veg. Ill: 1-472. 

1987.02. Greuter, W, (raff. cfeN.) & J. McNeill 

(vice^RAFP.)^ Synopsis of proposals on botanical no- 
menclature, Berlin, 1987. Taxon 36: 174-281. [334 
proposals.] 
1987.12. McNeill, J, XIV International Botanical Con- 
gress: mail vote and final Congress action on no- 
menclatural proposals. Taxon 36: 858-868, 

1988.07. Greuter, W, et al. (editors). International 
Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the 
Fourteenth Internationa! Botanical Congress, Berlin, 
July-August 1987. Regnum Veg. 118: 1 328. [En- 
glish only,] 

1988.08. Stafleu, F, A. The prehistory and history of 
lAPT, Taxon 37; 791-800. 

1989 04. Greuter, W., J, McNeill & D, Nicolson. 

Report on botanical nomenclature — Berlin 1987. 
Englera 9: 1-228. 



i 

« 

I 



WHO CONQUERED THE 
NEW WORLD? OR FOUR 
CENTURIES OF 
EXPLORATION IN AN 
INDEHISCENT CAPSULE 



Joseph Ewan^ 



Abstract 

We track botanical conquest from Oviedo (who met Colymbus in 1490 and visited Santa Marta, present Colombia, 
in 1515) to the corporate botanical garden at the close of the 19th century. We also recognize the foreign correspondent 
of the 16th century; the solitary missionary-naturalist of the 17th century; the apologist of systems (who advocates 
schemes of classification) in the 18th century; and the naturalist-collector, then often a member of a government- 
sponsored expedition in the 19th century. 



History? We are nniaking history. Plant taxonomy 
is not a purely descriptive science^ it is history^ 
deviously directed toward a conclusion. History 
rests on archives of two sorts: books published from 
archives, and plant mummies ticketed or labeled 
and entombed in herbaria. The conquest of the 
New World by the explorers who observed and 
reported begins with Columbus who met Oviedo 
two years before Columbus set sail. We headline 
the sixteenth century for its commentators on the 
plants observed; the seventeenth century by the 
missionaries who collected seeds and, now and then^ 
specimens; the eighteenth century by apologists of 
systems, collecting exhibits to support their schemes; 
the nineteenth century by the field collector-ex- 
plorer who filled, not cabinets of curiosities, but 
museums which by the twentieth century would 
overflow. 

Floras, faunas, history, everything flows, omnia 
fleurit. When did the sea bean, Eniada gigas, first 
take the Gulf Stream across the Atlantic? The soft 
pithlike wood of cuipo or quipo {Cavaniliesla pla- 
tanifolia)^ a relative of ceiba^ for centuries had 
been washed on the Azores by tempests. Indeed, 
these waifs were gathering evidence for what in 
Columbus's day was still looked upon as shoreless 
seas,^ When he was coasting among the Bahamas 
on the first of his four voyages, Columbus wrote: 
"I believe there are many plants and many trees 
which are worth a lot in Spain for dyes, and for 
medicines and spicery; but I do not recognize them, 
which gives me great grief."^ Pineapple as a do- 
mesticate from the Mosquito Coast was described, 
for example, by Columbus's son Ferdinand as a 



"great pine cone; and the plant is grown in large 
fields [in Veragua, Panama] from shoots that grow 
out of the same pina [and] plants last for three or 
four years, always producing fruit."* (See Fig, I.) 

Pineapple was transplanted by Guaranies of south 
Brazil and Paraguay — the word Ananas is a Tupi- 
Guarani name — via other Amerindians probably 
down the Orinoco avenue of penetration to the 
Caribbean. The Portuguese had delivered it as far 
as Goa on the Indian Ocean during the sixteenth 
century. But pineapple was not the staple food that 
maize was, "the most important of all foods for 
men and their livestock/'^ By the late sixteenth 
century the peoples of central Africa were raising 
maize, manioc, peanuts, and squashes, aU Ameri- 
can domesticates, but we do not know exactly who 
those phyto-conquestadors were, who delivered the 
foodstuffs, or how early they arrived. So dispro- 
portionate was the west-to-east movement that 
Vavilov listed 640 New World plant domesticates 
but only 50 of African origins.'^ 

Weeds from tropical or warmer climates had 
arrived in the Mediterranean from even before the 
days of Marco Polo, and these Old World emigrants 
arrived in Hispaniola in 1494 on the 17 ships of 
Columbus^s second voyage. (Do you remember the 
Santa Maria^ Pinta, and Nina from your school- 
book history days? The Nina returned to Hispan- 
iola in 1494,) On board were 1,200 men (no wom- 
en) taken abroad to build the settlement near 
Isabela," Imagine the weed seeds that arrived when 
rootcrowns of the grape vines and sugar cane from 
Spain and her possessions were planted- 

Bixa^ the body paint of jungle Indians, in mod- 



Missouri Botanical Garden, P,0* Box 299, St. Louis, Missouri 63166, U,S.A, 



Ann. Missouri Bot. Card. 78: 57-64. 1991 



The following text is generated from uncorrected OCR. 



[Begin Page: Page 32] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



Recent Advances in Botany, Volume 1 . Univ. To- 
ronto Press, Toronto. 

WALKER, J. W. ET AL. 1 975. The bases of angiosperm 
phylogeny. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 62: 515-834. 

WILEY, E. 0. 1981 . The Theory and Practice of Phy- 
logenetic Systematics. Wiley-lnterscience, New York. 

WILLIS, M. 1949. By Their Fruits-A Life of Ferdinand 
von Mueller. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. 



YATSKIEVYCH, G. & R. C. MORAN. 1989. Primary di- 
vergence and species concepts in ferns. Amer. Fern 
J. 79: 36-45. 

ZURAWSKI, G. & M. T. CLEGG. 1987. Evolution of 
higher-plant chloroplast DNA-encoded genes: impli- 
cations for structure-function and phylogenetic stud- 
ies. Annual Rev. PI. Physiol. 38: 391-418. 



[Begin Page: Page 33] 



A HISTORY OF BOTANICAL 
N0MENCLATURE1 



Dan H. Nicolson2 



ABSTRACT 
I divide botanical nomenclature into three partly overlapping periods: the schismatic period (1840-1930), the 



dark ages (1915-1950), and the lAPT renaissance (1950-date). The schisms began with the 1843 British 
Association 

for the Advancement of Science approvai of zooiogicai ruies and became manifest with the 1867 Paris Congress 
approvai of Aiphonse de Candoiie's botanicai "iaws." Reunification efforts, such as those by Daiii (1877.12), faiied. 
The contemporary rise of "Darwinism" added to the divisiveness. By the late 1800s, various botanical centers had 
or were evolving modified or different Codes from the Candollean, not to mention fully formed Codes from 
"outsiders" 

like Saint-Lager (1 880.03?, 1 881 .04) and Kuntze (1 891 .1 0). The 1 905 Vienna Congress eliminated ail but the 
Brittonian (American) schism, which continued until the 1930 Cambridge Congress compromises. A nomenclatural 
"dark age" descended when the 1 91 5 London Congress was cancelled because of a subsequent engagement. 
World 

War \. The next congress (Ithaca, 1926) declared itself incompetent due to insufficient international representation. 
The 1930 Cambridge Congress revised the 1912 Brussels Code but, largely because of the death of Briquet in 
1931, 

its Code appeared only a few months before the 1 935 Amsterdam Congress that amended it. Again a World War 
struck and no official Amsterdam Code was ever produced. The 1 950 Stockholm Congress saw the establishment 
of 

the International Association for Plant Taxonomy, its journal, Taxon, in which ail Code amendment proposals now 
appear, and its serial publication, Regnum Vegetabile, in which ail subsequent Codes appear at the remorseless 
six- 
year pace of the congresses. 

The Linnaean aphorisms (1737.07) concerning 
nomenclature basically concern generic nomencla- 
ture (the first part of the binary system of nomen- 
clature). Few seem to have realized that the species 
names Linnaeus discussed are the diagnostic phrase 
names, not the species epithets, called nomina trivi- 
alia, that Linnaeus later, for plants (1753.05.01), 
adopted in his revolutionary binomial (or biverbal) 
system. 

The Linnaean nomenclature (binomial) system 
has two facets: divorcing the name from the di- 
agnosis and minimizing classification. Systems that 
totally eliminate classification, such as uninomial 
systems, are unwieldy. Systems that try to diag- 
nose, such as phrase names, are unstable. Bergeret 
devised the worst of all possible systems, called 
phytonomatotechnie, a 15-letter uninomial system 
with each letter expressing a descriptive charac- 
teristic, such as leglyabiajisbey for Belladonna. 
Du Petit Thouars added a bit of the family name 
to each generic name (such as Habenorchis to 
replace Habenaria). Fossil nomenclature is still 
troubled by mixing generic nomenclature with mor- 
phology. 

Priority had no part of the early schemes of 
nomenclature. Their authors, including Linnaeus, 
were focused on replacing the past. Linnaeus was 

the winner of this competition but contemporary 
and subsequent workers continued to devise new 
nomenclatural schemes and rules to overturn the 
past. 



EARLY RECOGNITION OF MODIFIED 
PRIORITY (1813) 

Augustin Pyramus de Candolle (1813), about to 
initiate tine great Prodromus, gave a nice discussion 
of nomenclature of what might be termed good 
practices with examples. He (p. 250) favored pri- 
ority except in the following five cases: (1 ) if the 
name was false and contradicted the characters of 
the plant, such as Lunaria annua (a biennial); (2) 
if the name was contrary to Linnaean practices 
such as pre-Linnaean or common names or if named 
by travelers who were not naturalists; (3) if the 
name was a later homonym of a name already 
published, be it in the plant or animal kingdom; 
(4) if the name was a later homonym or a tautonym 
created in the process of maintaining the epithet 
of an early name; (5) if the name was a nomen 
nudum, lacking at least a phrase sufficient to make 
recognition possible, such as "in a simple catalogue 
of a garden." De Candolle did not use such modern 
words as epithet, homonym, tautonym, or nomen 
nudum but that is what he talked about. This was 



ANN. MISSOURI BOT. GARD. 78: 33-56. 1991 . 



' I thank Krister Karttunen (Helsinki) and Ronald Stuckey (Columbus, Ohio), who shared their bibliographies on 
nomenclature. I also thank Werner Greuter, director, and the staff (Berlin) for access to and ail facilities at their 
quickly regrowing library. 
2 Department of Botany NHB-166, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 



[Begin Page: Page 34] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



still a biological code, revealed by the avoidance 
of homonymy with earlier names in zoology. 
There undoubtedly are earlier authors who had 
the idea of trying to maintain usage, unlike re- 
formers such as Linnaeus. The general idea was 
to maintain usage from Linnaeus by the principle 
of priority with certain modifications. It is the mod- 
ifications that have caused most of the disagree- 
ments. 

BEGINNING OF THE BREAK WITH 
ZOOLOGY (1 843) 



The approval of Strickland's 1 843 Code by a 
committee of the British Association for the Ad- 
vancement of Science officially began what I call 
a split. However, they were not thinking in terms 
of a split, as is clear from the second of the following 
quotations: 

The first quote concerns the evil that they wish 
to address. "It consists in this, that when naturalists 
are agreed as the characters and limits of an in- 
dividual group or species, they still disagree in the 
appellations by which they distinguish it." Further 
on they discuss the sins that create this evil. 

Finally, so ail will know how botanical nomen- 
clature was perceived by zoologists (including 
Charles Darwin, a member of the Strickland Com- 
mittee): "... we conceive that the botanical no- 
menclature of the present day stands in much less 
need of distinct enactment than the zoological. The 
admirable rules laid down by Linnaeus, Smith, De- 
candolle, and other botanists . . ., have always ex- 
ercised a beneficial influence over their disciples. 
Hence the language of botany has attained a more 
perfect and stable condition than zoology and .. 
its present backward and abnormal state ...." 

One of the subsequently liveliest issues was the 
question of author citation in new combinations. 
This work recommended (for the first time?) citing 
only the author first publishing a name for the 
species (optionally in parentheses), irrespective in 
what genus the epithet was now used. Peter F. 
Stevens has suggested (in litt.) "that the develop- 
ment of this convention is associated with changes 
in the philosophy that species are created, fixed 
and immutable, and placed in similar genera; what 
came to be important in priority was who first 
discovered the unknown species, not who finally 
put it in the "right' genus." 

CANDOLLEAN LAWS OF 1867 
On 1 August 1867 Alphonse de Candolle fin- 
ished the cornerstone work of botanical nomencla- 
ture for the meeting of the International Botanical 



Congress of 16 August 1867 in Paris. This 60- 
page paper has 1 1 pages of introduction, 1 9 pages 
of "laws" in 68 articles, and 28 pages of com- 
mentary. The commentary is particularly valuable 
because it comments on past usage with examples. 
One of the main issues (one-third of the commen- 
tary) concerns author citation, favoring the old way 
(only the name of the transferring author) but 
noting that others had introduced the new way 
(only the name of the author first publishing the 
basionym) in botany. The issue is exemplified by 
how to cite Robert Brown's Matthiola tristis, pre- 
viously known as Linnaeus's Cheiranthus tristis; 



the old way is Matthiola tristis R. Br., and the 
new way is Matthioia tristis L. 

According to Bentham (1 878.1 2), it was the 
nomenclatural objections to J. Miller's treatment 
of Euphorbiaceae in the Prodromus that occa- 
sioned de Candolle's producing his Lois. See See- 
mann (1866.12.01), Gray (1867.01), and A. L. 
de Candolle (1867.05.01) for contemporary dis- 
cussion. De Candolle indicated that Karl Koch's 
proposals (1866) to the London International Hor- 
ticultural Exhibition and Botanical Congress pro- 
vided the inspiration. Alphonse de Candolle was 
president of the London 1 866 Congress and might 
have been stimulated to start thinking about cod- 
ifying rules. However, I found little in Koch's pro- 
posals or the proceedings that would have been as 
inspiring as the nomenclatural novelties that Jean 
Miiller slipped into de Candolle's Prodromus. Mil- 
ler's major sin was to credit names, such as Croton, 
to himself when he redefined the taxon. 

Apparently between 1 and 16 August 1867, a 
commission, composed of Du Mortier, Weddell, 
Cosson, J.-E. Planchon, Eichler, Bureau, and de 
Candolle (representing France, England, Germany, 
Belgium, and Switzerland), went over the proposed 
articles and suggested modifications in the form of 
motions to the Congress. At the Congress (cf. de 
Candolle, 1 867.1 1 ) there were the first discussions 
of vital questions such as Order vs. Family, Cohort 
as a rank between Class and Order, long discussions 
about how to name hybrids, more debate on author 
citation for new combinations, even a mention of 
types in discussions. Otto Kuntze, who later will 
make himself famous in nomenclature, made a 
proposal about pleonasms and it passed. Eichler 
argued for replacing -ae- with -i-, as in hederae- 
folia, but was finessed by Alphonse de Candolle 
who said this was a matter of latinity and grammar, 
not nomenclature. 

It is worth noting that the Code (1867.09.12) 
was not enforced like the current Code(s). It was 
"adopted by the assembly as the best guide to follow 



[Begin Page: Page 35] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 



History of Botanical Nomenciature 



for botanicai nomenciature" (A. L. de Candoiie, 
1867.11:208). 

Witliin 1 8 montlis de Candoiie (1 869.06) feit 
compeiied to address tine questions and criticisms 
raised by "iiis" Code, including approbation. He 
gentiy demanded permission not to speak of tine 
vexing question of autlior citation, pointing out tliat 
lie seemed to Inave invoiuntariiy provoked a kind 
of polemic and antipatlny that rarely contributes to 
progress in science. He continued to avoid discus- 
sion of Greek and Latin because it doesn't involve 
nomenclature. I mention most of tine issues tliat 
he addressed in his quiet and civil fashion (with my 
summary): (1) retroactivity of laws (pro); (2) saving 
the name when a taxon is subdivided (pro); (3) 
effective publication; (4) citation of unpublished 
names (ex favored over in); (5) names contrary to 
fact (con); (6) hybrids and cultivated plants. 

Dall (1 877.1 2) released an important survey of 
American zoologists with another Code, including 
the Candollean laws, for botanists and zoologists. 
This was not a unified (biological) Code because, 
when there were real differences (as the different 
endings for family names) then there were separate 
but contiguous articles. Otherwise an article per- 
tained to both botany and zoology. For those in- 
terested, an excellent discussion of the differences 
between the two Codes was published in 1944 (see 
bibliography). 

Saint-Lager was peeved by the Candollean ef- 
forts to maintain status quo, characterized as "con- 
tinuation of disorder and anarchy." In 1880 he 
released his reform, aiming to overhaul all the 
"bad" spelling. This substantial treatment (155 
pages, supplemented by 50 more pages the follow- 
ing year) covered most orthography questions (some 
that continue to vex us), applying pure classicism 
or peculiar conventions to change an astounding 
number of names or epithets. His ideas included 
(1) replacing Panax (p. 109) with Panaxus (at 
least we wouldn't argue about its gender) and (2) 
replacing genitive (p. 118) substantives (nemorum, 
segetum, sepium) with corresponding adjectives 
(nemoralis, segetalis, sepicola). The major effect 
was to make botanists aware that correctness could 
overturn usage and to strengthen support for the 
Candollean laws. 

In 1883 Alphonse de Candoiie published his 
"New remarks" (commented on by Asa Gray, 
1883.12). De Candoiie reviewed what happened 
over the past 1 6 years. His introduction com- 
mented on the Codes and Reports of nonbotanical 
groups. The opening part surveyed ongoing dis- 
cussions article by article. The second part dealt 



with new matters, such as nomenclature of organs 



and fossils. The third part (61-76) included the 
1 867 Code with an indication of the changes pro- 
posed. 

KEW RULE 

The first mention of what will be known as the 
"Kew Rule" was by Henry Trimen (1 877.06). This 
was objected to by de Candolle (1877.08). Hiern 

(1878.03) stoutly defended it. The first formal 
definition was by Trimen (1 878.06: 171). Bentham 
(1878.12) protested "... creating a new name in 
order to combine an old specific with a new generic 
one." Jackson (1887.03) discussed his problems 
with what was to become Index Kewensis. The 
Kew Rule: "Our practice is to take the name under 
which any given plant is first placed in its true 
genus as the name to be kept up, even though the 
author of it may have ignored the proper rule of 
retaining the specific name [epithet], when trans- 
ferring it from its old genus to the new." The Kew 
Rule was opposed again by Alphonse de Candolle 
(1888.10), but supporters perceived it as applying 
the principle of priority by maintaining the oldest 
applicable (binomial) name. 

In January 1888 Asa Gray, the monarch of 
American botany, died, having supported the Kew 
Rule in one of his last papers (1887.12). Within 
months Nathaniel Lord Britton (Joseph Ewan as- 
sured me that the accent is on "Lord") began to 
show the first inklings of a drastic "new" nomen- 
clature, shocking the Old Guard. The Candollean 
Code was under attack and promised to flood the 
new Index with unnecessary names. Many new 
combinations appeared in Poggenberg et al.'s 

(1888.04) Preliminary Catalogue, hailed by 
Greene (1888.06) as the "opening of a new era," 
but attacked by James Britten (1888.09) and Al- 
phonse de Candolle (1888.10) as "mischievous," 
despite a spirited defense by Britton (1888.10). 



KUNTZE STRIKES (1891) 

Late October 1 891 , Kuntze's new Revisio with 
1 ,074 replacement genera and 30,000 new com- 
binations appeared, a nomenclatural schism of the 
first order. Kuntze had a very broad view of what 
constituted homonymy, treated 1737 as the start- 
ing point, and that claimed he was only actually 
applying the Candollean Code. 

Kuntze's work is, like Saint-Lager's, essentially 
forgotten, but is full of examples and repays study. 
It is worth trying to realize what an impact his 
work had at that point. Geneva (Alphonse de Can- 
dolle) discontinued the great Prodromus in 1874, 



[Begin Page: Page 36] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



Kew (Bentham and Hooker) finished the Genera 
Plantarum in 1883 and (Jackson) had just sent 
Index Kewensis to press, Berlin (Engler) began 
Die natirlichen Pflanzenfamilien in 1888. Sud- 
denly thousands of names were thrown into ques- 
tion, most perhaps challengeable (say by locking 
on 1 753 rather than 1 737) but many were not. 

The major attack came from German botanists. 
In April 1892 the German Botanical Society ap- 
pointed a committee to prepare a supplement to 
the Lois of four propositions (theses). This was 
mailed to 706 botanists, requesting support and 
comments on each proposal (called "pamphleteer- 
ing" by Weatherby in 1 949.01 ). The four were: 
(1 ) priority of generic names from 1 752; (2) re- 
jection of nomina nuda and seminuda, including 
generic names based on simple figures and exsic- 
cata without description; (3) retention of generic 
names differing only by the last syllable or inflec- 
tion, even if they differ only by one letter; and (4) 
conservation of listed generic names. 

The results of this poll, with comments received, 
appeared in Paul Ascherson's report to the Society 
(1892.07) and again at the September Botanical 
Congress in Genoa (400th anniversary of Colum- 
bus). Dali (1877.12) also had used a poll but was 
more interested in principles than in what to my 
eye appears to be "damage control." Also included 
was the first published list of generic names to be 
conserved, another effort to maintain usage threat- 
ened by Kuntze who (1 895.1 1 , if not before) termed 
the list an "Index inhonestans." 

There was what in retrospect can be seen as a 
passing of baton by the nomenclatural leader. Bri- 
quet, who had included nomenclatural observations 
in his 1891 treatment of mints for Burnat's Flore 
des Alpes Maritimes, published (1892.02.04) his 
comments on what Kuntze had done to the mints. 
Briquet's evidence was cited by Alphonse de Can- 
dolle (1892.05) in one of his last nomenclatural 
papers before his death (1893.04.04). 



ROCHESTER RESOLUTION OF 1892 

In the meantime a botanical club (with N. L. 
Britton) held a meeting within the American As- 
sociation for the Advancement of Science (A.A.A.S.) 
in Rochester, New York, in August 1892. Their 
proceedings (Fairchild, 1892.09) included the 
Rochester Resolutions (later called the Rochester 
Code), which accepted the Paris Code of 1867 with 
eight exceptions: (1) priority was fundamental; (2) 
starting point was 1 753 for genera and species; 
(3) the original specific name [epithet] was to be 



retained unless a tautonym or later homonym; (4) 
no later homonyms; (5) publication of generic names 
either by distribution of printed description or by 
citation of one or more species as examples or 
types, with or without diagnosis; (6) publication of 
species names either by printed description or with 
reference to previously published species as a type; 

(7) later similar generic names are not to be rejected 
on account of slight differences, except in spelling; 

(8) in case of transfer of a species to another genus, 
the original author must be cited in parentheses, 
followed by the author of the new binomial. They 
also approved sending Lucien Underwood to the 
Genoa Congress to deliver their resolution. 

The September 1892 Botanical Congress in 
Genoa was obviously the place where a rousing 
battle could be expected. 

Underwood (1 892.1 1 ) reported on the polyglot 
sessions. Ascherson presented the substance of his 
recently published report concerning Kuntze with 
four proposals. The Rochester platform was pre- 
sented. After the discussion the first three Berlin 
propositions were approved with 1753 (a Rochester 
resolution) for both genera and species. All else 
(conserved names and the Rochester resolution) 
was referred to a committee (Penzig 1893.04?: 
439), which was to report to the next International 
Congress (Paris, 1900). 



MADISON RULES OF UNMODIFIED 
PRIORITY (1893) 

In August 1 893 a group of American botanists, 
meeting at Madison, Wisconsin, decided to amend 
what now are now being called the "rules of no- 
menclature" adopted at Rochester (1892) and vot- 
ed to change "Section IN" of the Rochester Code 
by striking out ail after the word "retained." This 
meant that a species epithet must be retained (re- 
stored) even if it involved a tautonym or a later 
homony. They also approved "that precedence in 
the same volume be regarded as priority," a mod- 
ification of the first section. Although the Roch- 



ester/Madison resolution (1893.09) did not men- 
tion types, tine idea of page (and place on the page) 
priority, i.e., first listed species or specimen, was 
used for typification by practitioners of the new 
school until the (1907.04) Brittonian (American) 
Code provided ways around the first "listed." In- 
deed, the major point of these rules, aside from 
astounding brevity, clarity, consistency, and posi- 
tiveness, was that they admitted no exceptions. If 
you found the earliest name, your troubles were 
over for ail time. Also, practitioners had the moral 



[Begin Page: Page 37] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



high ground in that you recognized the earliest 
proposer and nothing could be fairer. 

Note that what Saint-Lager, Kuntze, Britton, 
and others (as radicals) emphasized are the rules 
themselves, never mind upsetting usage, which was 
only a short-term consequence (cost). The Can- 
dollean (conservative) concept was to try to main- 
tain the status quo, never mind some complexity 
of rules, which are really of no importance. Both 
concepts would agree that stability is the goal of 
nomenclature, but one wonders if the interaction 
of these two schools doesn't result in a Code with 
the worst of both worlds: a complex and constantly 
changing Code (trying to maintain past usage) and 
constant conservations (to set aside rules that, de- 
spite complexity, are not maintaining the past). 



KUNTZE STRIKES BACK 

In July 1893 Kuntze published a second dose 
(first part of the third volume) of his Revisio. It 
had two features, a detailed comment on each 
publication (> 50!) that commented on his first 
dose and his Codex Nomenclature Botanicae 
Emendatus in German, French, and English in 
three columns with parallel text. Nothing was too 
fine to escape his caustic and withering comments, 
including the Rochester Resolutions, which were 



far closer to him than any other. 

John Isaac Briquet, who was to dominate no- 
menclature for more than 30 years (like Alphonse 
de Candolle), readdressed (1894.02) the imbroglio 
with a discussion of eight questions and a conclusion 
involving Kuntze's impact on the generic names 
of Labiatae. This work was important for the com- 
ments on, among other things, nomina nuda and 
seminuda [subnuda], Patrick Browne, Rumphius, 
recycling names fallen into synonymy, still-born 
names, the role of pre-Linnaean documents, and 
infraspecific nomenclature. He also proposed 10 
modifications of the Lois. 

Kuntze (1894.07) discussed several recent at- 
tacks, expounding on Thouar's orchid names and 
other positions of Pfitzer, page priority (against the 
Madison amendments), an obligatory register for 
plant names, "once a synonym always a synonym," 
and so on. 

By 1 895 Ascherson and Engler were ail that 
were left of the 30-member international commis- 
sion recognized at the 1892 Genoa Congress. They 
put forward six propositions (1 895.01 ), of which 
the last two involved avoiding names that have not 
been used for 50 years, which would become an 
element of the Berlin Rules. 



Americans were showing an increasing disarray 
concerning their Code(s); the Harvard Code ap- 
peared on June and August 1 895 with five con- 
servative points. The latter (Anderson et al., 
1895.08) was signed by 74 American botanists "of 
various degrees of repute," a comment made ear- 
lier about the signers of the Rochester/Madison 
resolutions. 

BERLIN RULES (1897, 1902) 

Engler and his staff signed 1 4 rules for the Berlin 
Garden and Museum that appeared in June 1897. 
This was translated immediately into English 
(1897.08) and French (1897.09), often with com- 
ments. The Rules: (1 ) Priority was usually to be 
maintained (species from 1753, genera from 1754). 
(2) Generic names could be dropped if not in gen- 
eral use for 50 years from establishment unless 
restored because of the 1867 Lois. (3) Series were 
to end in -ales, families in -aceae, with exceptions 
for Coniferae, Cruciferae, etc. (4) For gender one 
must follow classical designations or, for later names, 
usage in Nat. Pflanzenfam. Changes ought not be 
made except for notorious errors in designations 
from proper names. (5) Generic synonyms were 
not to be applied in an altered sense for new genera 
or even sections. (6) Priority was to rule in species 
names unless objections were raised by monogra- 



phers. (7) Parenthetic citation of autlnors was to 
be used for new combinations, uniess tine autlior 
liimseif piaced tine species in anotlier genus. (8) 
Linnaean capitalization of species names was to be 
used (for epitliets derived from personal names or 
names of former genera). (9) Rules were given for 
forming generic names from personal names. (10) 
One must change -ae- to -i-, as menthifolia, not 
menthaefolia. (1 1) One must avoid tautonymy (incl. 
Elvasia elvasioides) and depart from priority in 
case of gross geographic errors (North American 
Asclepias syriaca L.). (12) Hybrids must appear 
as a formula of both parents (in alphabetic order) 
with multiplication sign between (binomial nomen- 
clature unsuitable). (13) Manuscript names, hor- 
ticultural names, designations in trade catalogs had 
no rights; a printed diagnosis was required. (14) 
No changes permitted to a generic or specific name 
unless moved by weighty reasons such as Rule 1 1 . 
A supplement to the Berlin Nomenklatur-Regein 
was published by Engler et al. (1902.08.29). 

KUNTZE STRIKES AGAIN 

In September 1898 Kuntze released the last two 
parts of the third volume of his Revisio. One sig- 



[Begin Page: Page 38] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



nificant document included is a Supplement to his 
Codex Nomenclaturae Botanicae Emendatus. 

PARIS CONGRESS OF 1900 
(STYLED THE 1ST INTERNATIONAL 
BOTANICAL CONGRESS) 

By October 1 900 the stage was set for fireworks 
but the Congress unanimously decided to put some- 
one in charge (John Briquet) and revise the Code 
at the next Congress. This was the beginning of 
the office of rapporteur gnral. Hua (in Perrot, 
1900: 475-486) made a detailed proposal to es- 
tablish an international periodical for publication 
of new names, a forerunner of a proposal referred 
to a subcommittee for registration of publications. 

Kuntze struck again, this time (1903.12) with 
Thomas Erik von Post in the Lexicon Generum 
Phanerogamarum, including his Codex Brevis 



Maturus. The work applied Kuntze's Code to pha- 
nerogam generic names, had a bunch of cryptogam 
generic names and, in the second part, dealt with 
names above generic rank, ail warranting a look 
by those interested in such. 

Kuntze was given little recognition. Stafleu (in 
TL-2 under Post) excerpted Barnhart's (1904.04) 
comment about Kuntze, "Possibly the vituperation 
poured upon ail who disagree with him has pre- 
vented his ideas from receiving as serious consid- 
eration as they deserve. It is certainly unfortunate 
that he should regard himself as an infallible referee 
upon ail points in dispute and hurl anathemas at 
all who refuse to acknowledge his authority, char- 
acterizing their propositions as 'dishonest,' 'inex- 
ecutable,' 'false' and 'lawless.'" 

BRITTONIAN (AMERICAN) CODE (1907) 
AND ITS PRECURSOR (1904) 
The Americans were divided and criticisms were 
being published, such as that by Fernald (1 901 .11), 
pointing out instability (actually inconsistencies) of 
practitioners of the Rochester resolutions. In early 
1 903 the Botanical Club of the American Asso- 
ciation for the Advancement of Science appointed 
a Nomenclature Commission. They produced a 
"Code of Botanical Nomenclature" (1904.05) with 
four principles, 19 canons, and separate sections 
on orthography and citations. This came with a 
simple proposal to the Vienna Congress, "the laws 
of 1867 be amended by abandonment of ail its 
articles and substitution of the appended Code," 
This proposal failed at Vienna in 1905, leading to 
the Philadelphia "American Code of Botanical No- 
menclature" of 1907.04, which should be called 



Brittonian rather than American. The basic text 
was mostly unchanged from the originally proposed 
Code (1904.05), but there were changes in Canon 
1 5 (application of generic names) as well as in- 
conspicuous additions elsewhere. I mention three 
definitions of now obscure terms (metonym, ty- 
ponym, hyponym, respectively taxonomic syn- 
onym, nomenclatural synonym, and name of an 
unidentifiable taxon). 

Weatherby (in Sherff, 1949.01) pointed out that 
this Code had at least one large crack compared 
to the ancestral Rochester/Madison resolutions' 
iron-clad insistence on priority: it gave an elaborate 
series of directions for choosing types other than 
the previous implicit recognition of the first listed. 
Apparently the practitioners of the Rochester/ 
Madison resolutions were upsetting more usage than 
they felt necessary and were willing to compromise 
their simple and brief Code with exceptions that 
took up more space than the original resolutions 



in to to. 



VIENNA CONGRESS OF 1905 
(2ND CONGRESS, 1ST CODE) 

Briquet tracked down aii reasonably explicit pro- 
posals since 1867 to change the code, translated 
them into French, and devised an organization. 
Thirty-eight publications were accepted as having 
specific proposals. This is a remarkable document, 
a key to the past. After ail was compiled and 
organized (Nov. 1904), he sent it to the 39 mem- 
bers of the commission with his comments as rap- 
porteur. They were to vote and return ail by 20 
January 1905 (31 did). Briquet (1905.03.15) laid 
out ail in four columns: (1 ) original (1 867) text, 
(2) proposed change(s), (3) the rapporteur's ob- 
servations to the Commission, and (4) text rec- 
ommended by the Commission. 

The Congress convened in June 1 905 in Vienna, 
capital of the flourishing Austro-Hungarian empire. 
This was the first meeting devoted solely to the 
vexing "problem of nomenclature." They had an 
immense amount of business with potential to end 
or descend deeper into chaos. It is fascinating to 
read how the proceedings were laid out (order of 
business), who had votes, and who did what. For 
example, N. L. Britton nominated Wettstein for 
president of the Bureau and proposed that French 
be the official language of nomenclature. Both were 
approved. Those wanting to speak had to submit 
a slip with their name and position (nom et qualit) 
to the president. Speakers were given five minutes 
(ten by exception) and only could speak twice on 



[Begin Page: Page 39] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



the same subject. In fact, this Congress provided 
the model still followed by our nomenclature ses- 
sions. 

The proceedings (Briquet, 1906) were also well 
spelled out, with a concordance of the 1 867 Lois 



with the Rules and Recommendations of the 1905 
Congress, the Code (principaiiy for vascuiar piants) 
in French, Engiish, and German with the now con- 
served generic names. 

Among the many accomplishments of the Vi- 
enna Congress were the establishment of the first 
imposed international Code (the 1867 Lois was 
only recommended as the best guide to follow). It 
did not satisfy Kuntze, but he died in early 1907. 
The Brittonian Americans, although they had won 
some victories, were not happy that names still 
were not applied according to types and were al- 
lergic to the new requirement that Latin had to be 
used for publishing names of new taxa, considered 
arbitrary. The Americans, at least those supporting 
N. L. Britton, therefore settled more firmly into 
the Brittonian (American) Code, a rupture that 
would continue for twenty-five years. 



THE BRUSSELS CONGRESS OF 1910 
(3RD CONGRESS, 2ND CODE) 

Aside from the nomenclature section, there was 
also an important section on bibliography and doc- 
umentation. The paleontologists, phycologists, and 
mycologists made many proposals. Harms's pro- 
posals on conserving fern names passed. Briquet 
tendered his resignation but, when everyone was 
upset, got what he really wanted, help. Harms was 
elected vice-rapporteur, the beginning of that of- 
fice. 

The 1 91 5 London Congress was never held, 
because of the outbreak of World War I in 1914. 

Two people were particularly important in the 
years soon after World War I: Albert Spear Hitch- 
cock (US) and Thomas Archibald Sprague (K). 
Each published initiatives that would ultimately 
mesh. In April 1919 Hitchcock presented some 
rules for fixing types of generic names that would 
(1921.04) become the "type-basis" Code. Did you 
realize that conservation of generic names, passed 
at the 1905 Vienna Congress, still did not involve 
listed types? 

Sprague's initiative was to publish (1 921 .06) a 
thoughtful paper on plant nomenclature titled 
"Some suggestions." This appeared in the Journal 
of Botany with the editor's (James Britten) invi- 
tation for comments. The paper stimulated a series 
of pleasant and unpolemic contributions from 



(mostly) Americans and British botanists that 
strongly signaled compromise and recognition that 
unity in nomenclature was better than ongoing 
strife. 

In July 1924, Alfred Barton Rendle presided 
over a discussion at the Imperial Botanical Con- 



gress of 13 points about the Code published by a 
committee convened by T. A. Sprague (1924.03). 
One point still seems current, "The Rules are too 
long and complicated." The conference resolved 
several interesting points: that Latin descriptions 
should not be required, ail later homynyms should 
be rejected, the type method should be adopted, 
and duplicate binomials (tautonyms) should be re- 
stored. 

In Hitchock's reliquiae at US I found two un- 
published circulars worth mentioning. One is Hitch- 
cock's circular (six pages, not counting cover letter) 
to American botanists interested in nomenclature 
dated 15 October 1924 concerning the practica- 
bility of compromise. The other is by Fernald and 
Weatherby dated 8 December 1924, apparently 
also widely circulated in America, which discussed 
the 12 proposals made by Hitchcock. These un- 
derlie Hitchcock's compromises (1926.05). 



ITHACA CONGRESS OF 1926 (4TH CONGRESS) 

In August 1926, Sprague, Hitchcock, and Bri- 
quet showed up at the Ithaca Congress. Sprague's 
paper was extremely erudite and offered the basis 
for a world-wide agreement on nomenclature, com- 
bining the best features of the International Rules 
and the Brittonian (American) Code. It is sad that 
these important proceedings were not published 
until 1929 (in Duggar). 
Hitchcock also made concrete proposals, ar- 
guing vigorously for a "standard list of accepted 
generic names, each with the species that shall 
direct its application." This would begin with con- 
served names "but would be gradually extended 
to include also all generic names in use." This 
sounds like a precursor of the "names in current 
use" effort, which is still divided on whether types 
should be included. 
A roundtable discussion was held with papers 
read by Briquet (review since 1910 with sugges- 
tions for the upcoming 1 930 Cambridge Congress), 
Marshall Howe ("I don't feel so irreconcilable as 
I may have"), and Merritt Lyndon Fernald ("keep 
Latin"). A paper from N. L. Britton was read for 
him ("nothing is constant but change"). The report 
(in Duggar, 1929: 1782) by Karl McKay Wie- 
gand, secretary of the taxonomy section, noted the 



[Begin Page: Page 40] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



approval of an International Interim Committee 
with John Briquet as chairman, H. Harms, vice- 
chairman, with more than 20 named members from 
ail over the world. All nomenclatural resolutions 
were referred to this committee. 



CAMBRIDGE CONGRESS OF 1930 
(5TH CONGRESS, 3RD CODE) 

The synopsis of proposals cited 20 documents, 
most typewritten. One of the most important was 
a 203-page document (1929.08?) by "British bot- 
anists." It included Hitchcock and/or Green's lists 
of generic names (then 458 currently conserved 
and 1,159 Linnaean) proposing that the application 
of these names be controlled by means of the spec- 
ified "standard-species." Sprague's list of proposed 
conserved names is the first truly documented ap- 
proach to proposing names for conservation, hith- 
erto a matter of citing competing names and places 
of publication (both in proposals and in the Code) 
and nothing more. 

Briquet's synopsis was, as before, a model of 
clarifying confusion. The multicolumn approach 
continued, but now with only two columns. The 
first column had the original text of the Brussels 
(1912) Code and, in italics in the second column, 
the rapporteur's comments on the proposed new 
text. The votes of the Commission on the proposals 
appeared in a second document "Avis pralable" 
that was handed out at the Congress (apparently 
rare). 

I will not attempt to summarize or highlight the 
debates from proceedings beyond saying that the 
idea of using types to determine the application of 
names (rather than the original circumscription) 
was accepted, and the Latin requirement (regarded 
as arbitrary by Britton) was moved forward from 
1 908 to 1 932. This ended the American schism. 
There was an interesting discussion (cf. Brooks & 
Chipp, 1931 : 544-553) about matters that since 
have come to pass or remain needed, such as 
Harvey Hall's proposed "International Bureau of 
Plant Taxonomy," making and distributing pho- 
tographs of types, and producing an index to col- 
lections in different herbaria (Ramsbottom). 

Unfortunately, John Isaac Briquet died in late 
October 1 931 , and the task of producing the third 
edition of the Code (in three languages) fell to 
Harms, Rendle, Mangin, Hochreutiner, and 
Sprague. Sprague (1933) published the main pro- 



visions of tine amended Code witli exampies from 
tine Britisli fiora. Rendie (1934.06) pubiislned an 
Engiisli text (witlnout appendices). Tine officiai Cam- 
bridge Code appeared about February 1935, oniy 
montlis before \he September Amsterdam Con- 



gress. Tine Cambridge Code, despite its extremely 
sliort life, was the first completely international 
Code. 



AMSTERDAM CONGRESS OF 1935 (6TH CONGRESS) 

Briquet's death had delayed the Cambridge Code 
which, in turn, shortened the lead time for revisions 
at the next Congress. In September 1934 an an- 
nouncement appeared in several journals (J. Bot. 
and Bull. Misc. Inform.) that proposals to amend 
the (still unpublished) Code had to be submitted in 
100 copies by 1 January 1935. (That should slow 
things down!) Nonetheless, indefatigable botanists 
produced 14 submissions and, by July 1935, 
Sprague sent the synopsis of proposals to the seven 
members of the Executive Committee of Nomen- 
clature elected at Cambridge and to seven others, 
obtaining 10 votes. These were used to compile 
the Preliminary Opinions distributed at the Con- 
gress in September. 

Among the submissions processed by Sprague, 
I have had most occasion to consult the 43 col- 
lected proposals "by twelve botanists" that ap- 
peared in 1935.03. I would draw attention to Wil- 
mott's Index Purgatio, listing works that should 
be rejected for various cited reasons, and Sprague 
and Green's provisional list of institutions in 20 
geographical areas to get copies to validate names. 

English now became the official language, re- 
placing French, which had been official since Brit- 
ton's proposal to the 1 905 Vienna Congress was 
approved. The preceding Brussels and Cambridge 
proceedings had been reported in French, but prob- 
lems arose with the unexpected death of Briquet. 
Harms, the vice-rapporteur, asked Rendie to pre- 
pare the English text since most of the proposals 
had been in English. The French and German texts 
were generated by translation from Rendle's En- 
glish text. Sprague thanked Miss Mary Letitia 
"Manna" Green for her collaboration (in fact, he 
married her). 

Sprague asked that the 1 935 Cambridge Code 
be recognized as a faithful record of the 1930 
Cambridge decisions. This was wise in view of the 
great difficulties after Briquet's death, and it would 
have been even more futile than usual for nomen- 
claturalists to argue whether or not a proposal had 
been implemented correctly. He did ask that the 
Latin requirement date be moved forward again. 



from 1932 (when the Code had been expected) to 
1935 (when the Code came out). He also proposed 
automatic rejection of proposals with less than 20% 
support in the preliminary (Commission) vote. 

Probably the major battle of this Congress con- 
cerned the application of a combination when mis- 



[Begin Page: Page 41] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



applied, the classic example being Tsuga merten- 
siana (Bong.) Carr. Carrire based his name on 
Bongard's Pinus mertensiana but applied it to an 
excellent illustration that was not Bongard's spe- 
cies. This is a classic problem of the old circum- 
scription method tangling with the new type method 
(just introduced), not to mention the whole question 
of whether or not parenthetic authors should be 
cited that had so vexed nomenclaturalists of the 
preceding century. 

Hitchcock died on shipboard while returning 
from the Amsterdam Congress. 

Now World War II interposed. Not only was 
there no Stockholm Congress in 1940, there never 
was an official Amsterdam Code. Until the next 
Congress (Stockholm in 1950) people had to make 
do with 1 935 (Cambridge) Code and what they 
could find about the Amsterdam Congress (fortu- 
nately not too drastically changed, but the type 
method was new to many) mostly from Sprague's 
summary in 1936 and the Congress proceedings. 
Approved conserved names were listed by Sprague 
(1940.06). 



BRITTONIA CODE (UNOFFICIAL) 

In the late 1940s steps were taken to revive 
things, just as after World War I. The word went 
out in 1 946 that there would be a Congress in 
Stockholm in 1 950. In March 1 946 the Council 
of the American Society of Plant Taxonomists ap- 
pointed a committee (Camp, Rickett, and Weath- 
erby) to prepare for the Congress. They produced 



the unofficial "Brittonia" Code (1947.04), foiiowed 
by a symposium on botanicai nomenciature in De- 
cember 1 947 at St. Louis (publislned 1 949.01 ). 
Weatlierby's paper, "Botanical nomenclature since 
1867," said everything that should be said. 
Meanwhile, in February 1947, Professor Lan- 
jouw (Utrecht) wrote to several botanists and, hav- 
ing gotten support, invited taxonomists to a June 
1948 conference on preparing a new Code. The 
results were not published until August(?) 1950 
but they had dramatic consequences before. Among 
the Americans at the Utrecht Conference were 
Merrill and Rickett, who were already involved in 
the American initiative. Ray Fosberg was there 
(and attended the thesis defense of Frans A. Sta- 
fleu). Lanjouw agreed to be acting rapporteur g- 
nral, succeeding Sprague. 



STOCKHOLM CONGRESS OF 1950 
(7TH CONGRESS, 4TH CODE) 

Lanjouw's synopsis of proposals was large (255 
pages) and was mailed with the first voting form. 



requesting return by 1 June 1950. I note that A. 
C. Smith received his copy on 5 June, so he did 
not return it. There were only 540 proposals to 
process in 40 hours (4 minutes each). Two hundred 
mail ballots were received and anything with less 
than 25% support was automatically rejected. 

An important event occurred on 1 8 July 1 950 
at what Stafleu (1988.08: 795) called "an informal 
session" (attended by 130 taxonomists). Lanjouw's 
proposals for an association with an office (bureau) 
in Utrecht was accepted and became Resolution 
1 of the Congress (pp. 67, 68). This was the 
official beginning that turned into things like the 
Taxon and Regnum Vegetabile. Taxon, being the 
official journal of the new International Association 
for Plant Taxonomy, became the vehicle for pro- 
posals to amend the Code so that they no longer 
were scattered through the literature. I would be 
astonished if any working taxonomist does not con- 
sult something in Regnum Vegetabile almost every 
day, be it Index Herbariorum, TL-2, ING, or even 
the Code. 

The first issue of Taxon appeared in September 
1951 . The first issue of Regnum Vegetabile (ac- 
tually numbered 3) was the Stockholm Code, which 
appeared in September 1952, barely in time for 
the Paris Congress. The editing of the Stockholm 
Code was described by Merrill (1952.01). The 
Stockholm Congress proceedings came out in 1953. 



PARIS CONGRESS OF 1954 
(8TH CONGRESS, 5TH CODE) 

This was the first Congress to have all proposals 
published In a single journal. The Geneva Confer- 
ence of 25-30 January 1 954 was a precursor 
event, as the Utrecht Conference of June 1 948 
before the Stockholm Congress. Its report appeared 
In April 1954, soon after the synopsis. Stafleu's 
report on the proceedings appeared In August 1955. 
A feature of the 1 956 (Paris) Code was the ap- 
pearance of a fourth language, Spanish. Another 
was a concordance of Article and Recommendation 
numbers among the latest Paris Code and the two 
preceding Codes (Stockholm and Cambridge). 

It would be useful to extend this concordance 
back through the three preceding Codes, Brussels 
(1912), Vienna (1906), and Pahs (1867). Some- 
how this should then weave In all proposals to the 
same text (Including rejected ones) and the ex- 
amples proffered. I am convinced we would find 
we are constantly reinventing the wheel. If not 
repeatedly raising the same examples discussed 
before. 

There Is neither time nor space to continue since 



[Begin Page: Page 42] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



we are only half way through and have six more 
Codes to go, the products of the subsequent Con- 
gresses: Montreal (1959), Edinburgh (1964), Se- 
attle (1969), Leningrad (1975), Sydney (1981), 
and Berlin (1987). Montreal was my first Congress 
and I was somewhat distracted by being on my 
honeymoon. My best memory of Edinburgh was 
the "Bloody Donk" speech. At Seattle I made my 
first motion on the floor (defeated) and have been 
told that this was the last "decent" Code. Leningrad 
passed my orthography proposals, probably assist- 
ed by my absence when discussions started, for the 
first time, with proposals pertaining to the last 
articles of the Code. This was the first Code to 
number paragraphs within articles, making It eas- 
ier to cite. Sydney was the first Congress most of 
us experienced without Stafleu In the chair and 
"mice will play when the cat Is away." Stafleu 
rejoined us for Berlin (1 987), but said that he will 



not go to Tokyo (1993). 

We must end on an upbeat, and I can do no 
better than repeat Weatherby's (1949.01 : 7) 
translated quotation from Alphonse de Candolle's 
introduction to Inis 1867 Lois (witin a few minor 
clianges since nomenclaturalists can't even quote 
eacli otiier witlnout making "improvements"): 
"Tliere will come a time when ail the plant forms 
in existence will have been described; when her- 
baria will contain indubitable material of them; 
when botanists will have made, unmade, often re- 
made, raised or lowered, and above ail, modified 
several hundred thousand taxa ranging from classes 
to simple varieties, and when synonyms will have 
become much more numerous than accepted taxa. 
Then science will have need of some great reno- 
vation of its formulae. This nomenclature which 
we now strive to improve will then appear like an 
old scaffolding, laboriously patched together and 
surrounded and encumbered by the debris of re- 
jected parts. The edifice of science will have been 
built, but the rubbish incident to its construction 
not cleared away. Then perhaps there will arise 
something wholly different from Linnaean nomen- 
clature, something so designed as to give certain 
and definite names to certain and definite taxa. 

"That is the secret of the future, a future still 
very far off. 

"In the meantime, let us perfect the binomial 
system introduced by Linnaeus. Let us try to adapt 
it better to the continual, necessary changes in 
science . . . drive out small abuses, the little neg- 
ligences and, if possible, come to agreement on 
controversial points. Thus we shall prepare the way 
for the better progress of taxonomy." 



CHRONOLOGIC BIBLIOGRAPHY ON BOTANICAL 
NOMENCLATURE, WITH SOME ANNOTATIONS 
The entries in this bibliography are arranged chrono- 
logically to better reflect the subject, history. The bib- 
liography's purpose is not just to support text references 
as conventional Literature Cited, and it has unexpected 
entries such as the death date of some critical workers. 
All citations appear with the date in the format 
year. month. day, i.e., in increasing degrees of accuracy. 
Incompletely dated publications are usually cited after 
more completely dated publications. Some publications 
give only a spread of months, such as (06-07), or days 
10-17. The query (?) was used when there is more than 
usual uncertainty. Dates were mostly determined from 
evidence in the publications or from other sources, such 
as Stafleu and Cowan's Taxonomic Literature II. 
1737.07. LINNAEUS, C. Critica Botanica. 270 pp. Lugduni 
Batavorum. [Arthur Hort's translation, revised by M. 
L. Green, published 1938 by the Ray Society, was 
questioned by Heller (1964.04). Note: As Miss Green 



said, when Linnaeus spoke of specific names, lie 
meant tine diagnostic pinrases in tine binary system 
of Inis predecessors and Inimseif, not tlie triviai epitliets 
iater adopted in Inis binomiai system.] 

1753.05.01. LINNAEUS, C. Species Plantarum .... Hol- 
miae. 

1 798.1 1 . LAMARCK, J. B. A. P. MONNET DE. Nomencla- 
ture. Pp. 498-499 in Encycl. Meth. Bot. Volume 
4. H. Agasse, Paris. [Complained of abuses, such as 
Linnaeus's converting Syringa into Philadelphus, 
opposing the replacement of names familiar to bot- 
anists. "These two kinds of names [generic and spe- 
cific] ought to be subject to rules that cannot be set 
aside without prejudicing the science that they aim 
to facilitate." He particularly objected to the generic 
names of the Forsters. He objected to specific epithets 
that are untrue and those derived from names of 
places or scholars (the latter were OK for genera).] 

1813. CANDOLLE, A. P. DE. De la nomenclature. Pp. 221- 
252 in Thorie Elmentaire de la Botanique .... 
Paris. 

1 821 .01 . SMITH, J. E. Respecting Nomenclature .... 
Pp. 51-54 in A Grammar of Botany. Longman et 
al., London. Reprinted by Prakash Publishers, Jaipur, 
in 1973. [Objected to corrupt names. "Future gen- 
eral writers on Botany, of competent authority, must 
reform these abuses."] 

1832.10. LINDLEY, J. An Introduction to Botany .... 
Longman et al., London. [Chapter IV of Nomencla- 
ture and Terminology (pp. 454-459) and V Of Syn- 
onyms (pp. 460-462). DC. uses asteriks (*) in syn- 
onymy = good description. "Mark of admiration" 
(!) indicates inspection of authentic specimen-thus, 
"Linn.l. sp. pi. 427."] 

1843. STRICKLAND, H. E. (REPORTER), J. PHILLIPS, J. 
RICHARDSON, R. OWEN, L. JENYNS, W. J. BRODERIP, 
J. S. HENSLOW, W. E. SHUCKARD, G. R. WATER- 
HOUSE, W. YARRELL, C. DARWIN & J. O. WESTWOOD. 
Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature 
of zoology uniform and permanent. Report of the 
1 2th Meeting of the British Association for the Ad- 
vancement of Science held at Manchester in June 
1842, pp. 105-121. 

1 843.07. GOULD, A. A. Notice of some works, recently 



[Begin Page: Page 43] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



published, on the nomenclature of zoology. Amer. J. 
Sci. Arts45: 1-12. 

1860. STIMPSON, W. On botanical and zoological nomen- 
clature. Edinburgh New Philos. J. 12: 321-324. 

1864.03. GRAY, A. Nomenclature. Amer. J. Sci. Arts, 
ser. 2, 37: 279-281 . [Commented on the newly 
reprinted zoological rules (Edinburgh New Philos. J. 
1863:260-).] 

1866.06.01. KOCH, K. Some propositions with respect 
to systematic botany. J. Bot. 4: 201 . [Abstract, trans- 
lated from German.] 

1866.?? KOCH, K. Einige die Systematik betreffende 
Vorschliige. Pp. 188-195 in [Secretary?], Int. Hort. 
Exhib. Bot. Congr. London 22-31 May 1866 Rep. 
Proc. [total pagination?] Truscott, Son & Simon, 
London. [English summary appeared on pp. 21-22.] 

1 866.1 2.01 . [SEEMANN, B.?] [Review of] Prodromus Na- 
turalis Regni Vegetabilis. Editore A. de Candolle. 
Pars. XV., Sectio Posterior, Fasc. II. Sistens Eu- 
phorbiaceas. Auctore J. Miller, Argoviensi. Paris. 
1866. J. Bot. 4: 387-388. [Objection: ". . . because 
he includes forms that had before been excluded, he 
displaces the name of the author of the species, and 
attaches his own to it."] 

1867.01. GRAY, A. An innovation in nomenclature in the 
recently-issued volumes of the "Prodromus." Amer. 
J. Sci. Arts, ser. 2, 43: 126-128. [Objected to J. 
Mueller changing the authorship of generic names 
when changing the circumscription.] [Reprinted by 
Seemann: J. Bot. 5: 81 -84. 1 867.03.01 .] 

1867.05.01. CANDOLLE, A. L. DE. [Correspondence con- 
cerning criticisms of] Dr. Mueller's Monograph of 
the Euphorbiaceae. J. Bot. 5: 151-152. 

1 867.08.01 . CANDOLLE, A. L. DE. Lois de la Nomencla- 
ture botanique rediges et commentes .... 60 pp. 
V. Masson et fils, Paris. [Basis for discussion.] 

1867.09.12. CANDOLLE, A. L. DE. Lois de la Nomenclature 
botanique adoptes par le Congrs ... a Paris en 
Aot 1867 .... 64 pp. H. Georg, Genve et Ble, 
J. B. Baillire et fils, Paris. 

1867.11. CANDOLLE, A. L. DE (RAPPORTEUR). Discussion 
des Lois de la Nomenclature botanique. Pp. 1 77- 

208 [and] Lois de la Nomenclature botanique. Pp. 
209-255 in E. Fourneri (Secrtaire), Actes du 
Congrs International de Botanique .... Paris. 

1867.12. CRPIN, F. La Nomenclature botanique au 
Congrs Internationale de Botanique. 28 pp. [The 
author citation argument ad nauseam.] 

1868. DES MOULINS, C. Lettre Monsieur Franois Or- 
pin. 10 pp. Bordeaux. [Reprinted from Actes Soc. 
Linn. Bordeaux 26(4).] 

1868.?? CANDOLLE, A. L DE. Laws of Botanical Nomen- 



clature. [English translation] by H. A. Weddell. 72 
pp. L. Reeve & Co., London. 

1868.07. GRAY, A. Editorial remarks and suggestions [on 
the laws of botanical nomenclature.] Amer. J. Sci. 
Arts, ser. 2, 46: 74-77. [Preceded (pp. 66-74) by 
a copy of Weddell's English translation.] 

1869.06. CANDOLLE, A. L. DE. Rponse diverses ques- 
tions et critiques faites sur le Recueil des Lois de 
Nomenclature botanique, tel que le Congrs inter- 
national de 1867 I'a publi. Bull. Soc. Bot. France 
16:64-81. 

1 870.01 ? CARUEL, T. & A. L DE CANDOLLE. [Corre- 
spondence.] Una questions di nomenclatura botanica. 



Nuovo Giorn. Bot. Ital. 2: 146-149. [Names pub- 
lished with a query.] 
1874.02-04. MULLER, J. Nomenclatorische Fragmente 
[with six parts.] Flora 57: 89-94; 1 1 9-1 26; 1 56- 
159. [Motion 1 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 7).] 
\. Ueber die Giltigkeitsbedingungen der systema- 

tischen Namen. Pp. 89-94. 
M. Ueber das Citiren der Autoren bei generisch neu 

gestellten Arten. Pp. 1 1 9-1 21 . 
IN. Ueber die Autoritit bei verwendeten Zettelnamen. 
Pp. 121-123. 

IV. Ueber das Autorschema bei umgenderten Gat- 

tungsbegriffen. Pp. 123-126. 

V. Ueber das Ableiten der Speciesnamen von Var- 

iettsnamen. P. 156. 

VI. Verliert ein systematischer Name seinem Rang so 

verliert erzugleich sein Priorittsrecht. Pp. 
156-159. 

1 875.01 . CELAKOVSKY, L. Zwei Fragen der botanischen 
Nomenclatur. Flora 58: 2-6; 21 -31 . [Priority right 
of species epithets and generic names.] 

1876.12? COGNIAUX, C. A. & A. L. DE CANDOLLE. [Cor- 
respondence.] Ouelques points de nomenclature bo- 
tanique. Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belgique 15: 477-485. 
[First appearance of the principle "Never attribute 
to an author what he didn't say."] 

1877.06. TRIMEN, H. Some points in botanical nomen- 
clature. J. Bot. 1 5: 1 89-1 90. [Supports de Can- 
dolle's position in the published Cogniaux correspon- 
dence (1876.12?). First mention of what will be 
known as Kew Rule on p. 190.] 

1877.08. CANDOLLE, A. L. DE. [Letter & response by 
editor, Trimen.] J. Bot. 15: 242-243. [Opposing the 
Kew Rule; defended by Trimen.] 

1877.09. CARUEL, T. Botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 15: 
282. [Supported Kew Rule as espoused by Trimen's 
response to de Candolle (1877.08).] 

1877.10. CARUEL, T. Divisiones plantarum propositae. 
Nuovo Giorn. Bot. Ital. P: 280-281. [Phaneroga- 
mae, Schistogamae, Prothallogamae, Bryogamae & 
Gymnogamae.] 

1877.12. BALL, J. On some questions of botanical no- 



menclature. J. Bot. 15: 357-360. [Supported de 
Candolle (1877.08), opposing the Kew Rule.] 

1877.12. DALL, W. H. Nomenclature in zoology and 
botany. A report to the American Association for the 
Advancement of Science at the Nashville Meeting, 
August 31 , 1 877. 56 pp. (A.A.A.S., Volume XXVI). 
[Important survey of zoologists and Code with ele- 
ments for botanists.] 

1878.03. HIERN, W. P. On a question of botanical no- 
menclature. J. Bot. 16: 72-74. [Supports the Kew 
Rule.] 

1878.05. BALL, J. On disputed questions of botanical 
nomenclature. J. Bot. 16: 140-142. [Balanced dis- 
cussion of Kew Rule, basically opposing it.] 

1878.06. TRIMEN, H. On a point in botanical nomencla- 
ture. J. Bot. 1 6: 1 70-1 73. ["... the framing of a 

fixed rule .... This practice is, to employ the earliest 
published name the generic half of which is the name 
of the genus adopted, and thus avoid making a new 
[binomial] name by the resuscitation of the specific 
half of an older combination."] 
1878.09. MATHEWS, W. Botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 
16: 260-262. [Advocated the zoological method of 
author citation.] 



[Begin Page: Page 44] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



1878.1 1 . CANDOLLE, A. L. DE. Botanical nomenclature. 
J. Bot. 16: 345-346. [Drew attention to his upcom- 
ing Supplment (1883.07?), subsequently excerpted 

in English by Britten (1888.10).] 

1878.12. BENTHAM, G. Nomenclature. Pp. 189-198 [in 
his] Notes on Euphorbiaceae. J. Linn. Soc, Bot. 17: 
185-267. [Objected to those who have abandoned 
"the rules that long-established custom amounts to 
prescription ... ," i.e., when priority should be set 
aside, as for Patrick Browne, but accepted Adanson. 
Opposed "correcting" original spellings. Supported 
what will be the Kew Rule. Excerpted by J. Bot. 17: 
45-48. 1879.01.] 

1879.04. GRAY, A. Review of Bentham's "Notes on Eu- 
phorbiaceae." Amer. J. Sci. Arts [Extracted by: Bot. 
Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 4: 1 58-1 61 . 1 879.05; J. Bot. 
18:186. 1880.06.] 

1879.07. COULTER, J. M. & M. S. COULTER. Honorary 
names in scientific nomenclature. Bot. Gaz. (Craw- 



fordsville) 3: 61-64. [Provoked by Gilia parreyae: 
discriminates between possessive (in genitive) and 
dedicative (adjectival) epitlnets. Worslnipful of Asa 
Gray.] 

1 879.08.01 . MULLER, F. VON. Einige Worte iber die 
erste Ausgabe von Linn's Species Plantarum in Be- 
zug auf Vorzugsreclnt. Bot. Zeig. (Berlin) 37: 490- 
491. 

1 879.08.01 . DRUDE, O. Uber Nomenclaturfragen. Bot. 
Zeit. (Berlin) 37: 492-494. 

1880.03? SAINT-LACER, J. B. Rforme de la nomenclature 
botanique. Ann. Soc. Bot. Lyon 7: 1-154. 

1 . Origines de la Nomenclature [incl. Nomenclature 
des Grecs.]. Pp. 1 37. 

2. Rforme des pithtes spcifiques qui ne s'accor- 
dent pas avec le nom gnrique. Pp. 38-60. 

3. Rforme des pithtes spcifiques qui ferment 
plonasme avec le nom gnrique. Pp. 61-66. 

4. Rforme des noms composs d'un radical grec 
associ un radical latin. Pp. 67-72. 

5. La Nomenclature botanique est forme de noms 
grecs et latins. Pp. 73-75. 

6. De la dsinence des noms gnriques. Pp. 76- 

111. [With lists of ancient Greek names kept 
without change of inflection, with changes, mod. 
ern names with two Greek stems of which the 
last is masculine, neuter, and feminine.] 

7. De la dsinence des pithtes spcifiques. Pp. 

112-138. 

8. Des pithtes spcifiques barbares [or based on a 
person's name, or banal, geographic or recalling 
industrial or medicinal properties]. Pp. 139- 
150. 

9. Conclusions. Pp. 151-154. 

1881 .04. SAINT-LAGER, J. B. Nouvelles remarques sur la 
nomenclature botanique. Ann. Soc. Bot. Lyon 8: 
149-203. 

1 . Du genre grammatical des mots "Lotos et Meli- 
lotos."Pp. 149-156. 

2. De la dsinence des noms de genre. Pp. 156- 

163. 

3. Remarques sur le genre grammatical des noms 
gnriques d'origine grecque. Pp. 164-169. 

4. Des noms de genre tirs d'un nom d'homme. Pp. 

170-178. 

5. Orthographe de quelques noms de genre. Pp. 
179-183. 

6. Des plonasmes. Pp. 184-188. 



7. Des noms composs. Pp. 188-190. 

8. L'adjectif s'accorde avec le substantif auquel 11 
se rapporte. Pp. 191-203. 

9. "Medice, cura te ipsum." [Corrections to this and 
preceding work.] P. 203. 

1881 .03. JACKSON, B. D. On some recent tendencies in 
botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 19: 74-83. [Ob- 



jected to parenthetic author citations, "corrections," 
fauity capitaiizing of species epithets, and mischie- 
vous author abbreviations.] 

1882.06. GRAY, A. The citation of botanical authorities, 
J. Bot. 20: 173-174. [Advocated crediting names 
in Aiton's Hort. Kew. to Aiton, not Solander, R. 
Brown, etc.] 

1883.07? CANDOLLE, A. L. DE. Nouvelles remarques sur 
la nomenclature botanique .... Supplment au com- 
mentaire du mme auteur qui accompagnait le texte 
des lois. 79 pp. H. Georg, Genve. [Motion 2 in 
Briquet (1905.03.15: 7); Motion 1 in Briquet 
(1910.047:1).] 

1 883.1 0.31 . BUBANI, P. Su di alcune divergenze intorno 
la nomenclatura botanica . . . ed il compilatore delle 
proteste Leggi Prof. Alf. de Candolle. 15 pp. Bologna. 
[Objected to the tyranny of laws.] 

1883.12. GRAY, A. Some points in botanical nomencla- 
ture; a review of "Nouvelles Remarques sur la No- 
menclature Botanique, par. M. Alph. de Candolle," 
Geneva. 1883. Amer. J. Sci. Arts, ser. 3, 26: 417- 
437. 

1887.03. JACKSON, B. D. A new "Index of plant-names." 
J. Bot. 25: 66-71 (Jan.); 150-151 (May). [Kew 

Rule spelled out on p. 69. Statement from J. Hooker 

about the origin of the Index.] 
1887.06. WrITMACK, L. Rgles suivre pour la nomen- 

claturae des plantes en gnral, et des Orchides en 

particulier (5' question au Congrs de 1887). J. Soc. 

Natl. Hort. France ser. 3, 9: cvii-cxxiii. [Seen as 16 

pp. reprint.] 
1887.10. GREENE, E. L. The permanency of specific 

names. J. Bot. 25: 301 -303. [Objected to the Kew 

Rule.] 
1887.12. GRAY, A. Botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 25: 

353 355. [Attacked Greene by quoting Bentham 

and supported the Kew Rule.] 
1 888.01 . Asa Gray died at 78. 

1888.04. POGGENBERG, J. P., N. L. BRITTON, E. E. 
STERNS, A. BROWN, T. C. PORTER & A. HOLLICK 
(COMMITTEE OF TORREY BOTANICAL CLUB). Preliminary 
catalogue of Anthophyta and Pteridophyta reported 

as growing spontaneously within one hundred miles 
of New York City. 90 pp. [Nomenclature by Britton, 
Sterns & Poggenberg (subcommittee), beginning of 
the Brittonian (American) schism.] 

1888.06. GREENE, E. L. Botanical literature, old and new. 
Pittonia 1 : 1 76-1 94. [1 77-1 83 reviews a Ray 1 660 
publication with 48 binomials. 1 84-1 94 reviews the 
new preliminary catalogue by Poggenberg et al.] 

1888.09. BRITTEN, J. Recent tendencies in American 
botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 26: 257-262. [Ob- 
jected to Britton, Sterns & Poggenberg overturning 
the Kew Rule.] 

1888.09. STERNS, E. E. The nomenclature question and 
how to settle it. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 15: 230- 
235. 



1 888.1 0. CANDOLLE, A. L. DE. [Letter concerning] Bo- 
tanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 26: 289. [Agreed with 
Britten's (1888.09) protest about Britton et al. and 



[Begin Page: Page 45] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



complimented Asa Gray, about whom Americans ought 
to be proud and follow. Opposed the Kew Rule.] 

1 888.1 0. BRITTEN, J. Translation of Art. 48 discussion 
in A. L. de Candolle's "Nouvelles Remarques." J. 
Bot. 26: 290-292. 

1888.10. BRITTON, N. L. [Response to Britten's protest 
of 1888.09.] J. Bot. 26: 292-295. [Argued that he 
only did what Ellas Fries, Boissier, Richard Spruce, 
and a host of others have done (he was wrong about 
Boissier, who was strictly Candollean).] 

1891 . NORDSTEDT, O. Om originalexemplars betydelse 
vid prioritetsfrgor. Bot. Not. 1891: 76-82. 

1891 .10. KUNTZE, O. Revisio Generum Plantarum .... 
Volume 1 -2. 1 01 1 pp. {+ 1 55 introduction). [A 
bomb with thousands of new names and combinations. 
The chapter "Abnderungsvorschlige nebst Motiven 
zu den internationalen botanischen Nomenclatur- 
Regeln von 1867," pp. Ixxvi-cxxii, accepted as Mo- 
tion 3 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 7) and as Motion 2 
in Briquet (1910.047:1).] 

1 891 .1 1 .27. DRUDE, O. Bemerkungen zu Dr. Otto 
Kuntze's Aenderungen der systematische Nomencla- 
tur. Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 9: 300-306. 

1892.02.04. BRIOUET, J. Zur generischen Nomenclatur 
der Labiaten. Bot. Centralbl. 49: 1 06-1 1 1 . [Bri- 
quet's maiden nomenclatural paper, what Kuntze did 
to mints.] 

1892.05. CANDOLLE, A. L. DE. A note on nomenclature. 
J. Bot. 30: 135. [Noted Briquet's evidence against 
Kuntze's changes of Labiates and avowed great pleas- 
ure "dans mes vieux jours" with the support of 
principles he had always espoused.] 

1892.07? MALINVAUD, E. Ouatre propositions relatives 
a la nomenclature mises par un Comit de botanistes 
de Berlin; lettre d'approbation de M. Alphonse de 
Candolle. Bull. Soc. Bot. France 39: 137-142. [De 



Candolle's letter was dated 6 July 1 892, one of his 
last published comments on nomenclature.] 

1892.07. ASCHERSON, P. Vorlufiger Bericht iber die von 
Berliner Botanikern unternommenen Schritte zur Er- 
ganzung der "Lois de la nomenclature botanique." 
Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 10: 327-359. [Four Res- 
olutions. English J. Bot. 30: 241-242. 1892.08. 
Motion 4 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 7).] 

1892.08? GREENE, E. L. Dr. Kuntze and his reviewers. 
Pittonia 2: 263-281 . [Reprinted in Chron. Bot. 12: 
249-257. 1 951 .09. Statement by one of Kuntze's 
strongest supporters.] 

1892.09. FAIRCHILD, D. G. (SECR.). Proceedings of the 
Botanical Club of the Forty-first Meeting of the 
A.A.A.S., Rochester, New York, August 18-24, 
1892. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 19: 281-297. [Pp. 
290-292 have the Rochester resolutions signed by 
N. L. Britton, J. M. Coulter, H. H. Rusby, W. A. 
Kellerman, F. V. Coville, L. M. Underwood & L. F. 
Ward (Committee on Botanical Nomenclature). Mo- 
tion 5 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 7).] 

1 892.1 1.15. UNDERWOOD, L. M. The nomenclature ques- 
tion at Genoa. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 19: 324-330. 

1 892.1 1 . UNDERWOOD, L M. The International Congress 
at Genoa. Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 17: 341-347. 

1 893.077-1 0? KUNTZE, O. Die Bewegung in der bota- 
nischen Nomenclatur von Ende 1891 bis Mai 1893. 
Bot. Centralbl. 54: 353-361 ; 385-408. 

1893.04.04. Alphonse de Candolle died at 86. 

1893.04? PENZIG, O. (SECR.). Ouarta adunanza, Martedi 
6 Settembre alle 2 pom. Atti del Congresso Botanico 



Internazionale di Geneva 1 892. 81 -1 26 [Interna- 
tional Commission to consider four proposals of Berlin 
botanists announced on 9 Sep. pp. 439-440. Pp. 
117-121 accepted as Motion 7 by Briquet 
(1905.03.15: 7). Holmes's emendations in botanical 
terminology (pp. 121-124) accepted as Motion 8 by 
Briquet (1905.03.15: 7).] 
1893. ASCHERSON, P. Die Nomenclaturbewegung von 
1892. Bot. Jahrb. 15(Beibl. 38): 20-28. [Also in 
Ber. Pharmac. Ges. 4: 35-45. 1894.] 

1893.06. JACKSON, B. D. Index Kewensis. 1st fascicle 
[2nd fascicle in December.] 

1893.07. KUNTZE, O. Revisio Generum Plantarum 3(1): 
clx-ccccxxii. [Codex nomenclaturae botanicae emen- 
datus (pp. ccclxxxv-cccxvi) accepted as Motion 9 in 
Briquet (1905.03.15: 8) and as Motion 3 in Briquet 
(1910.047:1).] 

1 893.09. SWINCLE, W. T. (SECR.). Proceedings of the 
Botanical Club, A.A.A.S., Madison meeting. Bot. Gaz. 
(Crawfordsville) 18: 342-349. [Pp. 342-343 ac- 
cepted as Motion 10, without Art. II, by Briquet 
(1 905.03.1 5: 8), also Britten's report of same date.] 

1893.09. BRITTON, N. L. Proceedings of the Botanical 
Club, A.A.A.S., Madison meeting, August 18-22, 



1893. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 20: 360-365. [Pp. 

360-361 accepted as Motion 10, without Art. II, 

by Briquet (1 905.03.1 5: 8), also Swingle's report of 

same date.] 
1893? Om en falles Nomenclatur i systematik Botanik 

for Skandinavien. Forh. Skand. Naturf. 14 Moede 

1 892: 240-255. [Motion 6 in Briquet (1 905.03.1 5: 

7). Not seen.] 
1893. Fraen Botaniska Sllskapets i Stockholm forhand- 

lingar. Bot. Not. 1893: 158-161. [Motion 11 in 

Briquet (1 905.03.1 5: 8). Not seen.] 

1894.02. BRIQUET, J. Questions de nomenclature. Bull. 
Herb. Boissier 2: 49-88. [Motion 12 by Briquet 
(1905.03.15:8).] 

1894.07. KUNTZE, Q. Nomenclatur-Studien. Bull. Herb. 
Boissier 2: 456-498. 

1894.12.28. KNQBLAUCH, E. Die Nomenclatur der Gat- 
tungen und Arten. Bot. Centralbl. 61: 1-6. [Motion 
13 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8).] 

1 895.01 .15. BARNHART, J. H. Family nomenclature. Bull 
Torrey Bot. Club 22: 1-24. [Important document 
(see author's mature comment 1922.09). Motion 14 
in Briquet (1905.03.15:8).] 

1 895.01 . ASCHERSQN, P. & A. ENGLER. Erklirung der 
Geschiftsleitung der vom internationalen botanisch- 
en Congress zu Genua (1892) eingesetzen Nomen- 
clatur-Commission. Qesterr. Bot. Z. 45(1): 27-35. 
[Motion 1 5 in Briquet (1 905.03.1 5: 8 as pp. 327- 
335). Also in Verh. Ges. Deutsch. Naturf. 2: 153- 
159. 1894?] 

1895.03. RQBINSQN, B. L. Qn the "List of Pteridophyta 
and Spermatophyta of Northeastern America," pre- 
pared by the Nomenclature Committee of the Bo- 
tanical Club. Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 20: 97-103. 

1895.04. CQVILLE, F. V. A reply to Dr. Robinson's crit- 
icism of the "List of Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta 
of Northeastern America." Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 
20: 162-167. 

1895.04.13. PFITZER, E. Beitrge zur Systematik der 
Orchideen. I. Zur Nomenclatur. Bot. Jahrb. 19: 1- 
28. [What Kuntze did to orchids.] 

1895.05? KUNTZE, Q. Bemerkungen zum kinftigen bo- 



[Begin Page: Page 46] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



tanischen Nomenclatur-Congress. 5 pp. [Reprinted 



from Oesterr. Bot. Z. 1895(5): ??-??, not seen.] 

1895.06. ROBINSON, B. L. On the application of "once 
a synonym always a synonym" to binomials [with a 
circular letter extract: Recommendations regarding 
the nomenclature of systematic botany.] Bot. Gaz. 
(Crawfordsville) 20: 261-263. 

1895.07. COVILLE, F. V. Dr. Robinson and homonyms. 
Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 20: 320-322. 

1895.07? SMITH, E. F. The Botanical Club Checklist: A 
protest. [Published by author?] 16 pp. 

1895.07. WARD, L. F. The nomenclature question. Bull. 
Torrey Bot. Club 22: 308-329. [Survey of history 

of nomenclature and plea for peace.] 

1895.08. ANDERSON, C. L. & 73 OTHER AMERICAN BOTA- 
NISTS. Recommendations regarding the nomenclature 

of systematic botany. Bot. Jahrb. 21 (Beibl. 52): 12- 
15. [The Britton school's loyal opposition, called the 
Harvard Code.] 

1 895.08. ROBINsoN, B. L A further discussion of the 
Madison rules. Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 20: 370- 
371. 

1895.09. ORCUTT, C. R. Nomenclature. Out of Doors for 
Women 3(22): 1-2. [Mam(m)illaria vs. Cactus.] 

1 895.1 1 . KUNTZE, O. Les besoins de la nomenclature 
botanique. Monde PI. [Seen only as 6-page reprint: 
lays out what Congress should do and hopes to com- 
plete a "Nomenclator plantarum omnium correctus" 
by 1905.] 
1 895.1 1 . THISTLETON-DYER, W. Nomenclature. Bull. Misc. 
Inform. 1 895: 278-281 . [P. 280, "To me the bot- 
anists who waste their time over priority are like boys 
who, when sent on an errand, spend their time in 
playing by the roadside."] 

1895. MALINVAUD, L. J. E. La loi de priorit dans la 
nomenclature botanique. Congrs de Bordeaux. As- 
soc. Fran. I'Advancem. Sci. 4 pp. [Seen as reprint. 
Gave examples in Alyssum and Carex that seem 
unexceptional by today's standards.] 

1896.02. VARIOUS AUTHORS. The nomenclature question. 
Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 21 : 82-91 . 

1. KNOWLTON, F. H. Some inconsistencies in plant 
nomenclature, pp. 82-85. 

2. DAVENPORT, G. E. Botanical nomenclature. Pp. 
85-88. 

3. KUNTZE, O. Some remarks on nomenclature. Pp. 
88-90. 

4. MEEHAN, T. Dates and references, and priority in 
nomenclature. Pp. 90-91. 

1896. LE JOLIS, A. Lettre ... a M. Malinvaud. Bull. Soc. 
Bot. France 42: 661 -663. 

1896.04.12. BUCHENAU, F. G. P. [Untitled.] Bot. Jahrb. 

24: 648-668. IComment on nomenclatural issues.] 
1896.06. LEVIER, E. La pseudo-priorit et les noms a 

bquilles. Bull. Herb. Boissier 4: 369-406. [Attack 

on Kuntze's work.] 
1896.08. BRIOUET, J. Ouestions de nomenclature. 14 pp. 

[Reprinted from Observations priiminaires. In: E. 



Burnat's Flore des Alpes maritimes. 2: v-xvi.] 
1896.12.01. GARCKE, A. Einige nomenclatorische Be- 

merkungen. Bot. Jahrb. 22(Beibl. 55): 1-10. 
1897.05. HARMS, H. Die Nomenclaturbewegung der letz. 

ten Jahre. Bot. Jahrb. 23(Beibl. 56): 1-32. 
1897.06 [separate says 8 Mai]. ENGLER, A., I. URBAN, 

A. GARCKE, K. SCHUMANN, G. HIERONYMUS, P. 

HENNINGS, M. GURKE, U. DAMMER, G. LINDAU, E. 

GILG, H. HARMS, P. GRAEBNER, G. VOLKENS & L 



DIELS. Nomenclaturregein fiirdie Beamten des Kln- 

igliclien Botanisclnen Gartens und Museums zu Berlin. 

Notizbl. Kinigl. Bot. Gart. Berlin 1: 245-250. [The 

Berlin Code. Motion 16 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8). 

Also in Gartenflora 46: 304-308. 1 897.06.01 , which 

Robinson (1897.08) translated into English.] 
1897.08. BRITTON, N. L. [Translation and comments on] 

Nomenclaturregein fir die Beamten ... zu Berlin. 

Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 24: 415-419. 
1897.08. RoBINSON, B. L. The official nomenclature of 

the Royal Botanical Garden and Museum of Berlin. 

Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 24: 107-110. 

1897.08. BRITTEN, J. The Berlin Rules for nomenclature. 
J. Bot. 35: 305-307. 

1897.08.25. KUNTZE, O. Levier's Verdrehung von Ar- 
tikel 49 des Pariser Codex. Bot. Centralbl. 71 : 302- 
305. [Protests twisting of the Code.] 

1897.09. BRIQUET, J. "Rgles de Nomenclature pour les 
botanists attachs au Jardin et au Muse royaux de 
Botanique de Berlin" traduites et suives d'observa- 
tions critiques. Bull. Herb. Boissier 5: 768-779. 

1898.02. ENGLER, A. Anacardiaceae africanae. II. Bot. 
Jahrb. 24: 493-502. [Provoked Britten, 1898.03.] 

1898.03. BRITTEN, J. The fifty years' limit in nomencla- 
ture. J. Bot. 36: 90-94. [Odina vs. Lannea vs. 
Calesiam vs. Haberlia.] 

1898.06. ROBINSON, B. L. Some reasons why the Roch- 
ester Nomenclature cannot be regarded as a consis- 
tent or stable system. Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 25: 
437-445. 

1898.08.12. COOK, O. F. Stability in generic nomencla- 
ture. Science n.s. 8: 186-190. [Comments on Rob- 
inson, 1898.06.] 

1898.09. KUNTZE, O. Revisio Generum Plantarum. [Last 
two parts of 3rd volume. Part 2: 1 63-1 67, 1 80- 
201, "Codex nomenclaturae emendatus, supplemen- 
tum" accepted as Motion 17 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 
8) and in Briquet (1910.04?: 1).] 

1898.10.29. LE JOLIS, A. Protestation centre le Revise 
generum plantarum IN". 11 pages. J. Mersch imp., 
Paris. [Reprinted from J. Bot. (Morot) 12.] 

1898. GREENE, E. L. Bibliographical difficulties in botany. 
Catholic Univ. Bull. 4: 62-75. [Presentation of the 
circumscription method for determining the appli- 
cation of names.] 

1898. LEVIER, E. Lecasdu Docteur Otto Kuntze. 12 



pp. Florence. [Satiric, pungent, and deiiglntfui criti- 
cism of Kuntze's arguments and efforts.] 
1899.02.08. KUNTZE, O. Protest gegen die Scliwein- 

furtli'sclie Erkiirung. Bot. Centraibi. 77: 259-262. 
1899.05.10-17. CELAKOVSKY, L. J. Das Priorititsgesetz 

in der botanisclnen Nomenciatur. Bot. Centraibi. 78: 

225-234, 258-268. 
1899.09.15. ENGLER, A. ET AL. Erkiirung. Bot. Jalirb. 

27 (Beibi. 63): 7. [In reference to Engler et al. 

(1897.06). Motion 18 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8).] 
1899.09.20. KUNTZE, O. Ueber neue nomenciatorisclie 

Aeusserungen. Bot. Centraibi. 79: 405-412. 
1899.12. UNDERWOOD, L. M. Review of tine genera of 

ferns proposed prior to 1832. Mem. Torrey Bot. 

Ciub 6: 247-283. [Not seen, generic typifications?] 
1899. KUNTZE, O. 250 Gattungsnamen aus den Jalnren 

1737 bis 1763, weiclie im Kew Index felnlen oder 

faisch identifiziert sind. Deutsclie Bot. Monatsschr. 

1 7: 55-59. 89-91 , 1 07-1 1 0. [Seen as unpaged 

reprint.] 
1899. Voss, A. Nomenkiatur und Pflanzenkunde. 8 pp. 



[Begin Page: Page 47] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



[Reprinted from Grtn. Zentral-BI . 2. Kuntze sup- 
porter. Attack on 1 735 starting date used by Index 
Kewensis. Engiisln translation by Kuntze 1900.01.] 

1900.01 KUNTZE, O. Tlie advantages of 1737 as a start- 
ing-point for botanical nomenclature. J. Bot. 38: 7- 
1 1 . [Translation of Voss's 1 899 paper. Witln J. Brit- 
ten's editorial "generous" comments on pp. 1 0-1 1 .] 

1900.02.20. KUNTZE, O. Offene Antwort an den Vor- 
stand des Botanisclnen Vereins der Provinz Branden- 
burg. 2 pp. San Remo. 

1 900.02. KUNTZE, O. A plea for my 1 737 proposal. J. 
Bot. 30: 47-50. [Witli J. Britten's editorial com- 
ments on pp. 49-50.] 

1900.03? KUNTZE, O. Nomenklaturanfang und Reform 
internationaler Kongresse. Deutsche Bot. Mon- 
atsschr. 18: 33-47. [Reprint seen, 4 pp.] 

1900.09? WETTSTEIN, R. VON. Der Internationale bota- 
nisclie Congress in Paris und die Regelung der beta- 



nischen Nomenclatur. 5 pp. [Reprinted from Oesterr. 
Bot. Z. 1900(9):??-??] 

1900.06-09. KUNTZE, O. & T. VON POST. Nomenkla. 
torische Revision Inilierer Planzengruppen und iber 
einige Tausend Korrekturen zu Englers Plnaenoga- 
men-Register. 39 pp. [Reprinted from Allg. Bot. Z. 
Syst. 1900: 110-120. 1900.06; I.e.: 150-164. 
1 900.07; I.e.: 1 79-1 91 . 1 900.09. Accepted as Mo- 
tion 19 In Briquet (1905.03.15: 8).] 

1900.08.15. KUNTZE, O. Expos sur les Congrs pour la 
Nomenclature Botanique et six Propositions pour le 
Congrs de Paris en 1 900. 1 5 pp. Genve. [Proposed 
putting things off until 1905 in Vienna.] 

1900.09.28. COOK, O. F. The method of types in botan- 
ical nomenclature. Science n.s. 12: 475-481 . 

1900.12.30. KRAUSE, E. H. L. Reductio generum plan- 
tarum. Naturwiss. Wochenschr. 15: 613-614. 

1 900. PERROT, EMILE (SECR.). Actes du 1 " Congrs In- 
ternational de Botanique tenu a Paris I'occasion de 
I'Exposition Universelle de 1900. Lons-le-Saunier. 

1900. HALLIER, H. Das prolifierende personliche und das 
sachliche, konservative Priorititsprinzip in der bo- 
tanischen Nomenklatur. Jahrb. Hamburg. Wiss. Anst. 
17:55-64. 

1900. KUNTZE, O. Additions aux Lois de Nomenclature 
Botanique (Code Parisien de 1867) d'aprs le Codex 
Emendatus. 15 pp. [Reprinted from J. Bot. (Morot) 
14:.] 

1901 .03. FERNALD, M. L. Some recent publications and 
the nomenclatorial principles they represent. Bot. 
Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 31: 183-197. 

1 901 .1 1 . FERNALD, M. L. The instability of the Rochester 
Nomenclature. Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 32: 359- 
366. [Literature citations.] 

1901 . BELLI, S. Observations critiques sur la ralit des 
espces en nature au point de vue de la systmatique 
des vgtaux. [Motion 20 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 

8). Not seen.] 

1902.03. SHEAR, C. L. Generic nomenclature. Bot. Gaz. 
(Crawfordsville) 33: 220-229. 

1902.04. COOK, O. F. Types and synonyms. Science n.s. 
15:646-656. [Caconyms.] 

1902.08.29. ENGLER, A. ET AL. Zustze zu den Berliner 
Nomenclatur-Regeln. Bot. Jahrb. 31(Beibl. 70): 24- 
25. [Additions to the 1897.06 Berlin rules. Accepted 
as motion 21 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8).] 

1902.12. CLEMENTS, F. E. Greek and Latin in Biological 
Nomenclature. University [of Nebraska] Studies 3(1): 



1-85. [Excellent exposition of classical practices in- 
volving word formation, examples, and corrections.] 

1902. KRAUSE, E. H. L. Die Autornamen. Allg. Bot. Z. 
Syst. 7/8: ?-?. [Unpaged reprint of two unnumbered 
pages: advocated "Rubusfruticosus (O. Kuntze Ref. 
d. Bromb.)."] 

1903.05.22. HITCHCOCK, A. S. A note on nomenclature. 



Science n.s. 17: 827-828. [Objected to a recent 
case of an author (Scribner) giving preference to an 
epitliet in otiner tinan tine accepted rank.] 

1903.12. POST, T. VON & O. KUNTZE. Lexicon Generum 
Plantarum. Iviii + 714 pp. Stuttgart. [Based on 
Kuntze's Codex Brevis Maturus, pp. ix-xli, tine latter 
accepted as Motion 22 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8) 
and Motion 5 in Briquet (1 91 0.04?: 2).] 

1903. BoRBS, V. Zur Nomenclatur. Magyar Bot. Lapok 
2?: ?-?. [2 unnumbered; separate seen in Hungarian 
and German: concerns autlior citation of Linnaean 
binomials with pre-1753 epithet-bringing synonyms.] 

1903. MAIDEN, J. H. The principles of botanical nomen- 
clature. Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales 27: 683- 
720. [Excellent survey of then current issues.] 

1903. NOLL, F. Vorschlag zu einer praktischen Erwei- 
terung de botanischen Nomenclatur. Bot. Centralbl. 
14 (Beihefte): 374-380. 

1904.01.15. AMANN, J. ET AL. (Un Groupe de Botanistes 
Beiges et Suisses). Propositions de changements aux 
lois de la nomenclature botanique. i-iv, 1-45. Georg 
& Co., Genve, Ble et Lyon. [Motion 23 in Briquet 
(1905.03.15:8).] 

1904.03. SACCARDO, P. A. De diagnostica et nomencla- 
tura mycologica. Admonita quedam. Ann. Mycol. 

2(2): 195-198. [French (1904.07.31), English 
(1904.05).] 

1904.04. BARNHART, J. H. [Review of Post and Kuntze's] 
Lexicon Generum Phanerogamarum. Torreya 4: 42- 

44. 

1904.05. CLEMENTS, F. E. Saccardo: De diagnostica et 
nomenclatura mycologica; admonita quaedam. 
Translated. J. Mycol. 1 0: 1 09-1 1 2. 

1904.05. ARTHUR, J. C, J. H. BARNHART, N. L. BRITTON, 
S. BROWN, F. E. CLEMENTS, O. F. COOK, J. M. 
COULTER, F. V. COVILLE, F. S. EARLE, A. W. EVANS, 
T. E. HAZEN, A. HOLLICK, M. A. HOWE, F. H. 
KNOWLTON, G. T. MOROE, E. L. MORRIS, W. A. 
MURRILL, H. H. RUSBY, C. L. SHEAR, W. TRELEASE, 
L. M. UNDERWOOD, D. WHITE & W. F. WIGHT 
(members and alternates of the Nomenclature. Bull. 
Torrey Bot. Club 31 : 249-261 (English); 263-276 
(French); 277-290 (German). [Motion 25 in Briquet 
(1905.03.15:8).] 

1 904.05.31 . WILLE, N. & V. WITTROCK. Motion au 
Congrs international de Botanique Deuxime Ses- 
sion. Vienne 1905. Nyt Mag. Naturvidensk. 42: 
217-220. [Motion 26 in Briquet (1905.03.15) and 
Motion 7 in Briquet (1910.04?: 2).] 

1904.06.09. AMES, O. ET AL. Propositions de change- 
ments aux Lois de Nomenclature botanique de 1867 
... par les botanistes ... d'Universit Harvard. 32 
pp. [French 111, English 1 2-21 , German 22-32. 
Motion 27 in Briquet (1906.07?: 8).] 

1904.06.20. HARMS, H. Vorschlag zur Ergnzung "Lois 
de la nomenclature botanique de 1867," dem in 
Wien 1905 tagenden Nomenclatur-KongreB zur An- 



nahme empfohlen. Notizbl. Knigl. Bot. Gart. Berlin 
Appendix 13: 1-37. [Introduced the use of Dalle 
Torre & Harms numbers for conserved generic names 



[Begin Page: Page 48] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



of flowering plants. Motion 30 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 
9).] 

1904.06.25. MALINVAUD, E. Motion prsente au Congrs 
international de Botanique de Vienne. 1 [handwritten] 
page. [Motion 36 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 9).] 

1904.06. SACGARDO, P. A. Motions supplmentaires pr- 
sentes au Congrs International de Botanique de 
Vienne. 1 p. [Motion 35 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 9) 
and Motion 8 in Briquet (1910.04?: 2).] 

1904.06.23. ARCANGELI, G. ET AL. Adjonctions au Code 
de Paris 1867, proposes par quelques botanistes 
italiens. 1 2 pp. [Motion 33 in Briquet (1 905.03.1 5: 
9). French pp. 1-3; Italian pp. 5-8; German pp. 9- 
12.] 

1904.06? Additions et modifications aux Lois de la No- 
menclature botanique de 1867, approuves par les 
membres de la Socit de France. 12 pp. [Motion 
34 in Briquet (1 905.03.1 5: 9). Not seen.] 

1904.06. RouY, G. Additions et modifications aux Lois 
de la Nomenclature botanique de 1867. 4 pp. [Mo- 
tion 37 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 9). Preprinted from 
longer article (12 pp.) in Rev. Bot. Syst. Gogr. Bot. 
2: 1904.07.01.] 

1904.06. SACCARDO, P. A. Des Diagnoses et de la no- 
menclature mycologique. Propositions. 6 pp. [French 
translation by Levier of Saccardo's Latin (1904.06). 
Preprinted from Boll. Soc. Bot. Ital. 1904: 281- 
286. 1 904.07.31 . Motion 28 in Briquet (1 905.03.1 5: 
9).] 

1904.06. JACZEWSKI, A. DE (RAPP.). Projet de la revision 
des Lois de Nomenclature prsent par la Socit 
Imperiale des Naturalistes de Moscou. 10 pp. Mos- 
kva. [Motion 24 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 8) and 
Motion 6 in Briquet (1 91 0.04?: 2).] 

1904.06. HAYEK, A. VON. Antrige zur Regelung der 
botanischen Nomenklatur. 10 pp. [Reprinted from 
Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 54: 341-351. 1904. 
Motion 32 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 9).] 

1904.06. BRUNNTHALER, J. Motion prsente au Congrs 
international de Botanique, Vienne 1905. 1 p. [ Re- 



printed from Verh. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 54: 351- 
353. 1904. Motion 31 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 9).] 

1904.06. CARRUTHERS, W. ET AL. Amendments to tlie 
Paris Code of Botanical Nomenclature suggested for 
consideration of the Vienna Congress of 1 905 by the 
botanists of the British Museum and others. 3 pp. 
[Motion 29 in Briquet (1905.03.15: 9).] 

1904.07. HOCHREUTINER, G. Observations et propositions 
prsentes au Congrs de Vienne ... par un groupe 

de botanistes beiges et suisses. 8 pp. [Motion 38 in 
Briquet (1 905.03.1 5: 9). Not seen.] 

1905. HITCHCOCK, A. S. Nomenclatural type specimens 
of plant species. Science 21 : 828-832. 

1905.03.15. BRIOUET, J. Texte synoptique des documents 
destins servir de base aux dbats du Congrs 
International de Nomenclature Botanique de Vienne 
1905. 166 pp. R. Friedliinder & Sohn, Berlin. 

1 905.03.21 . BRIOUET, J. Resum du travail du Rappor- 
teur gnral et de la Commission international de 
nomenclature botanique. 2 pp. Genve. [Outlined 
what he did since his appointment 17 Nov. 1900.] 

1905.05. PAU, C, J. SECALL & L. NAVS. Observaciones 
sobre nomenclatura botanica para ser presentadas al 
2. Congreso international de Nomenclatura Botanica 
de Viena. 13 pp. [Reprinted from Bol. Soc. Aragonesa 
Ci. Nat. 4: ?.] 

1905.12.10. HARMS, H. Die Nomenklaturbewegung und 



der Internationale botanische KongreB in Wien 1905. 
Naturwiss. Wochenschr. 20: 785-789. 
1905. SCHWERIN, F. VON. Bericht und Betrachtungen 
liber die Resultate des Wiener Nomenklatur-Kon- 
gresses. Ber. Deutsch. Dendrol. Ges. 1905: 93-102. 
[Motion 9 in Briquet (1 91 0.04?: 2). Not seen.] 

1905. HALLIER, H. Neue Vorschlige zur botanischen 
Nomenklatur. Jahrb. Hamburg. Wiss. Anst. 22 (Beih. 
3); 33-46. [French pp. 43-45; English pp. 45-46.] 

1 906. BRIOUET, J. Compte rendu des dbats du Congrs 
international de Nomenclature botanique. Pp. 81- 

1 64 and more in R. von Wettstein, J. Wiesner & 
A. Zahlbruckner, Verhandlungen des Internationalen 
Botanischen Kongresses in Wien 1905. 

1906.04.10. GREENE, E. L. An unwritten law of nomen- 
clature. Leafl. Bot. Obs. 1: 201-212. [Objected to 
using personal names as part of generic names. Mo- 
tion 9 in Briquet (1910:047:2).] 

1906.08? BRIOUET, J. (RAPP. GN.). Rgles Internationales 
de la nomenclature botanique adoptes par le Congrs 
International de Botanique de Vienne 1905. 99 pp. 
G. Fischer, Jena. 

1906. NORDSTEDT, O. The starting-point of the nomen- 
clature of Desmids. Bot. Not. 1906: 96-106. [Not 
seen. Extracted in J. Bot. 45: 128. 1907.03.] 

1907.01 .28. Otto Kuntze died at 54. 

1907.02.04. SCHINZ, H. & A. THELLUNG. [On still-born 
names, pp. 101-102] in Begrindung vorzunehmen- 



der Namesniinderungen an der zweiten Auflage der 
"Flora der Schweiz" von Schinz und Keller. Bull. 
Herb. Boissier, ser. 2, 7: 97-1 1 2. [Motion 1 2 in 
Briquet (1910.04?: 2).] 

1907.03. ROBINSON, B. L. On the rules of botanical no- 
menclature adopted by the Vienna Congress. Rho- 
dora 9: 30-55. 

1907.04. ARTHUR, J. C, J. H. BARNHART, N. L. BRITTON, 
F. CLEMENTS, O. F. COOD, F. V. COVILLE, F. S. EARLE, 
A. W. EVANS, T. E. HAZEN, A. HOOLICK, M. A. 
HOWE, F. H. KNOWLTON, G. T. MOORE, H. H. RUSBY, 
C. L SHEAR, L. M. UNDERWOOD, D. WHITE & W. 

F. WIGHT. American Code of botanical nomencla- 
ture. Bull. Torrey Club 34: 1 67-1 78. [Motion 1 1 
in Briquet (1910.047:2).] 

1907.12.10. SCHINZ, H. & A. THELLUNG. (Circulaire) du 
1 dcembre 1 907 relative la question des noms 
mort-ns. 4 pp. [Motion 1 3 in Briquet (1 91 0.04?: 

2). Not seen.] 

1907.12. RENDLE, A. B. & J. BRITTEN. Notes on the 
"List of British seed-plants" II. J. Bot. 45: 433- 
445. [Still-born names discussion.] 

1908.12? JANCHEN, E. Zur Nomenklatur der Gattungs- 
namen. Oesterr. Bot. Z. 58(12): 466-470. [Long 
list to conserve/reject with names and dates only, 
no citations, no types, no discussion of cases.] 

1908. HAYEK, A. VON. (Sur la question des noms mort- 
ns). Mitt. Naturwiss. Vereins. Univ. Wien 6: 57- 
65. [Motion 14 in Briquet (1910.04?: 2). Not seen.] 

1 909.03.1 1 . ATKINSON, G. F. Motions proposant des 
articles additionels sur la nomenclature des cham- 
pignons, prsents au Mime Congrs international 

de botanique Bruxelles. 13 pp. Ithaca? [Motion 20 
in Briquet (1910.04?: 3). English pp. 9-13.] 
1 909.06.21 . HARMS, H. Proposition d'un Index nominum 
genericorum Pteridophytorum conservandorum, pr- 
sente au Congrs international de Botanique de 
Bruxelles 1910. 3 pp. Berlin. [Motion 35 in Briquet 
(191 0.04?: 4).] 



[Begin Page: Page 49] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



1909.06. RENDLE, A. B. ET AL. Motion proposing an 
additionai ciause to tine ruies of 1905 concerning tlie 
nomenciature of aigae, suggested for consideration 
of tine Brussels Congress of 1 91 by tine botanists of 
Xhe Britisli Museum and otiners. [Motion 24 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 3). Not seen but proposed C. A. Agardli 
as algal starting point teste TL-2 no. 9067.] 

1906.06? POTONI, H. Vorschlge zur Regelung der pa- 
liobotanischen Nomenklature. Jahrb. Preuss. Geol. 
Landesanst 30: 533-537. 

1909.07. JANCHEN, E. Proposition d'une Amplification de 
la List de Noms gnriques de Phanrogames, qui 
doivent tre conservs en tous ca. 9 pp. Vienne. 
[Motion 36 in Briquet (1910.04?: 4).] 

1909? DRUCE, G. C. Proposition. 2 pp.? [Replaced six 
names in the conserved names list. Saw only 1 page.] 

1909. SCHINZ, H. & A. THELLUNG. Bericht liber eine 
Enquete betr. die "totgebornen Namen" in der bo- 
tanischen Nomenklatur. Vierteljahrsschr. Naturf. Ces. 
Zurich 53: 493-514. [Motion 15 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 2). Not seen.] 

1909. JANCHEN, E. Zur Frage der totgebornen Namen 
in der botanischen Nomenklatur. 28 pp. Wien. [Mo- 
tion 1 6 in Briquet 1 91 0.04?: 2). Not seen.] 

1909. ARTHUR, J. C, E. G. BRITTON, F. E. CLEMENTS, 
F. S. EARLE & A. W. EVANS. Propositions relatives 
I'amendement et au complment des Rgles Inter- 
nationales de la Nomenclature botanique, adoptes 
par les Congrs international de Botanique de Vienne 
en 1905. 9 pp. [Motion 17 in Briquet (1910.04?: 

2).] 

1909. RENDLE, A. B. ET AL. Amendments to the inter- 
national rules for botanical nomenclature, suggested 
for consideration of the Brussels Congress of 1 91 
by the botanists of the British Museum and others. 
3 pp. London. [Motion 18 in Briquet (1910.04?: 2). 
Not seen.] 

1909. NORDSTEDT, O. Motion au Congrs international 
de Botanique. Troisime session. Bruxelles 1910. 2 
pp. Lund. [Motion 19 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3). Not 
seen.] 

1909. STOCKMAYER, S. Motion au Congrs international 
de Botanique Bruxelles 1910, relative la nomen- 
clature des Algues. 4 pp. Wien. [Motion 21 in Briquet 
(191 0.04?: 3). Not seen.] 

1909. SACCARDO, P. A. Da quale anno debba cominciare 
la validat della nomenclatura scientifica delle Crit- 
togame. 4 pp. [Motion 22 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3). 
Reprinted from Ann. Mycol. 7: 339-342. Not seen. 
Proposed 1753 as starting point for Cryptogams teste 
TL-2 no. 9946.] 

1909. RLL, J. Antrige, betr. Aenderungen und Zusitze 
zu internationalen botanischen Regein in Bezug auf 
die Nomenklatur der Sphagna. 12 pp. Darmstadt. 
12 pp. [Motion 23 in Briquet 1910:04?: 3). Not 
seen but see TL-2 no. 9391 for summary.] 

1909. STOCKMAYER, S. Motion au Congrs international 



de Botanique Bruxelles en 1910, relative la 
nomenclature des Cytomorpha 4 pp. Vienne. [Motion 
25 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3). Not seen.] 

1909. ERIKSSON, J. Comment nommer les formes biolo- 
giques des espces de champignons parasites? Motion 
prsente au Congrs international de botanique 
Bruxelles 1910. Lund. [Motion 26 in Briquet 
(191 0.04?: 3). Not seen.] 

1909. FISCHER, E. & P. MAGNUS. Vorschlige zur No- 
menklatur der parasitischen Pilze zu Handen des 



internationalen Kongress von 1910. 1 p. Berne. [Mo- 
tion 27 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3). Not seen.] 
1909. BOTTINI, A. ET AL. Motion proposant un article 
additionnel aux Rgles de 1905 sur la nomenclature 
des Mousses, prsente par un groupe de bryologues 
anglais, franais et italiens. 1 p. [Motion 28 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 3). Not seen.] 
1 909. DURAND, E.-J. A discussion of some of the principles 
governing the interpretation of pre-persoonian names, 
and their bearing on the selection of a starting-point 
for mycological nomenclature. 13 pp. [Reprinted 
from Science n.s. 29: 670-676. Not seen. Motion 
29 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3).] 
1909. NATHORST, A.-G. Motions priiminaires proposant 
des articles additionnels sur la nomenclature des 
plantes fossiles prsentes au lllme Congrs inter, 
national de Botanique Bruxelles, 14-22 mai 1910. 
3 pp. Lund. [Motion 30 in Briquet (1910.04?: 3). 
Not seen.] 
1909. POTONI, H. Propositions pour le rglement de la 
nomenclature palobotanique. 7 pp. Berlin. [Motion 
31 in Briquet (1910.04.?: 3). Not seen.] 
1909. TUZSON, J. Vorschlge zur Regelung de Palaeo- 
botanischen Nomenklatur, zur Beratung auf dem 
Brisseler Kongress 1910 vorgeschlagen. 6 pp. Bu- 
dapest. [Motion 32 in Briquet (1 91 0.04?: 3). Not 
seen.] 
1909. BORGESEN, P., L. KOLDERUP-ROSENVINGE & O. 
NORDSTEDT. Motion au Congrs international de Bo- 
tanique Bruxelles 1910 (concernant la nomencla- 
ture des Chlorophyces, Phaeophyces, et Rhodo- 
phyces). 6 pp. Copenhague. [Motion 33 in Briquet 
(1910.04?: 3). Not seen.] 
1909. SCHIFFNER, W. Motion au Congrs international 
de Botanique Bruxelles 1910 (concernant la no- 
menclature des Hpatiques). 4 pp. Vienne. [Motion 
34 (Briquet 1910.04?: 4). Not seen.] 
1910.04? BRIQUET, J. (SECR.). Recueil des documents 
destins servir de base aux dbats de la Section de 
nomenclature systmatique du Congrs International 
de Nomenclature Botanique de Bruxelles 1910, pr- 
sent au nom du Bureau permanent de nomenclature 
et des Commissions de nomenclature cryptogamique 
et palobotanique. 59 pp. [Recognized numbered 36 
motions.] 



1910.07.22. FARLOW, W. G. & G. F. ATKINSON. The 
Botanical Congress at Brussels. Science n.s. 32: 104- 
107. [Also in Bot. Gaz. (Crawfordsville) 50: 220- 
225. 1910.09.] 

1911. COGNIAUX, C. A. Nomenclature horticole. Rapport 
priiminaire prsent au Congrs international 
d'Horticulture de Bruxelles (1 91 0). Bull. Soc. Roy. 

Bot. Belgique 47: 364-424. [First Horticultral Code 
(pp. 419-424) with 16 Articles, criticized by Briquet 
as contrary to the Brussels Code just passed (1 91 0) 
but not yet published (1912).] 

1912. BRIQUET, J. (SECR.). Compte rendu des travaux de 
la Section de nomenclature botanique. Pp. 43-116 

(with annexes) in E. Wildeman (SECR.), Actes du III" 
Congrs International de Botanique Bruxelles 1910. 
Volume 1 . Albert de Boeck, Bruxelles. 
1912.09? BRIQUET, J. (RAPP. GN.). Rgles Internationales 
de la nomenclature botanique . . .deuxime Edition 
mise au point d'aprs les dcisions du Congrs In- 
ternational de Botanique de Bruxelles 1910. 110 
pages. G. Fischer, Jena. 



[Begin Page: Page 50] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



1912. CHQATE, HELEN A. The origin and development of 
the binomial system. PI. World 15: 257-263. 

1914.05. CQQK, Q. F. Terms relating to generic types. 
Amer. Naturalist 48: 308-313. [Qrthotype, haplo- 
type, logotype, pseudotype, cited usage of monobasic 
for "monotypic."] 

1 91 9.01 . PENNELL, F. W. Concerning duplicate types. 
Torreya 19: 13-14. [Credited by J. Ewan (1942.01) 
with the invention of "isotype" but term used before, 
see Q. F. Cook (1914.05: 309), who cited two pre- 
vious usages in a different sense.] 

1919.04. HITCHCQCK, A. S. Committee on generic types. 
Science 49: 333-336. [Rules and recommendations 
for fixing the types of generic names.] 

1 921 .04. HITCHCQCK, A. S. Report of the Committee on 
Nomenclature of the Botanical Society of America. 
Science 53: 312-314. [The "type-basis" Code.] 

1921.05. HITCHCQCK, A. S. The type concept in systematic 
botany. Amer. J. Bot. 8: 251-255. 

1921 .06. SPRAGUE, T. A. Plant nomenclature: some sug- 
gestions. J. Bot. 59: 153-160. [Qpening of an im- 
portant discussion: 12 points to change, many ex- 



amples.] 

1921 .08. BRITTEN, J. The Vienna Code. J. Bot. 59: 233- 
234. [Defended legality of Vienna Code recently 
attacked by N. Britton, Torreya 1919: 244-246. 
1919.] 

1921.10. RENDER, A. [Letter with more suggestions to 

Sprague 1 921 .06.] J. Bot. 59: 289-294. 
1 921 .1 0. GROVES, J. [Comments opposing Sprague 
1921.06.] J. Bot. 59:294-296. 

1 921 .1 0. BRITToN, N. L. [Comments opposing Sprague 
1921.06.] J. Bot. 59:296-297. 

1921.12. SPRAGUE, T. A. Notes on nomenclature. J. Bot. 
59: 345-349. [Important discussion on orthography 
(Gluta renghas/benghas example, latinizing French 
names ending in -ier and -ire to -erius).] 

1922.03. SPRAGUE, T. A. The nomenclature of plant 
families. J. Bot. 60: 69-73. 

1922.04. HITCHCOCK, A. S. [Suggestions regarding generic 
names.] J. Bot. 60: 111-112. [Advocating types.] 

1922.04. PENNELL, F. W. [Comments on plant nomen- 
clature.] J. Bot. 60: 112-11 8. [Expresses pleasure 

at Sprague's reopening the subject.] 

1922.05. SPRAGUE, T. A. Plant nomenclature: a reply 
[to Pennell & Hitchcock]. J. Bot. 60: 129-138. 

1922.09. BARNHART, J. H. Plant nomenclature. J. Bot. 
60: 256-263. [Fascinating commentary on the on- 
going discussion.] 

1922.07. WILMOTT, A. J. Some remarks on nomencla- 
ture. J. Bot. 60: 1 96-201 . [Attack on Schinz & 
Thellung, advocating a "loose" Code.] 

1922.09. BARNHART, J. H. Plant nomenclature. J. Bot. 
60: 256-263. [Response to Sprague.] 

1922.11. SPRAGUE, T. A. [Response to Barnhart.] J. Bot. 
60:313-316. 

1 922.1 1 . HITCHCOCK, A. S. [Type-basis code.] J. Bot. 

60:316-318. 
1 923.01 . FRITZ, E. A. Plea for common sense in changes 

of botanical nomenclature. J. Forestry (Washington) 

21 ?: . [Not seen, ref. by Dayton, 1 943.05.] 
1923.1 1 . HITCHCOCK, A. S. Type species for the first 

100 genera of Linn, Species Plantarum. Amer. J. 

Bot. 10:510-514. 
1924. SHEAR, C. L. The failure of the principle of priority 

to secure uniformity and stability in botanical no- 
menclature. Science 60: 254-258. 
1924.03. BRITTEN, J., J. RAMSBOTTOM, T. A. SPRAGUE 



(CONVENER), E. M. WAKEFIELD & A. J. WILMOTT. 

Interim report on nomenclature [to Imperial Botan- 
ical Conference]. J. Bot. 62: 79-81 . 
1 924.07. JACKSON, B. D. History of the compilation of 

the Index Kewensis. J. Roy. Hort. Soc. 49: 224- 

229. 
1925.04. GREEN, M. L. Standard species of the Linnean 

genera of Tetradynamia. Bull. Misc. Inform. 1925: 

49-58. 



1925. RENDLE, A. B. (CHAIRMAN). Rules of nomenclature. 
Pp. 300-307 and 384 in F. T. Brooks (Seer.), Im- 
perial Botanical Conference London, 7-16 July 1924. 
Univ. Press, Cambridge. 

1925.07. HANSON, H. E. Codes of nomenclature and 
botanical congresses. Amer. Botanist 31 : 1 14-120. 
[Summary history.] 

1926.03. SPRAGUE, T. A. Standard species. Bull. Misc. 
Inform. 1926: 96-100. [Residue vs. type method.] 

1926.05. HITCHCOCK, A. S. A basis of agreement on no- 
menclature. Amer. J. Bot. 13: 291-300. [An im- 
portant document.] 

1926.06.30. GREEN, M. L. Standard-species of nomina 
conservanda. 70 pp. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 
[Distributed softbound 30 June 1926-seen on trans- 
mittal note attached to BM copy. Cited reasons for 
"types" that were omitted in 1929 Proposals of 
British Botanists. Stafleu (1956.07: 87) noted that 
this "was circulated among botanists and botanical 
institutions before and at the Cambridge Congress."] 

1927.12. GREEN, M. L. History of plant nomenclature. 
Bull. Misc. Inform. 1927: 403-415. 

1928.03.1. SURINGAR, J. V. Personal ideas about the 
application of the international Rules of Nomencla- 
ture, or as with the Rules themselves, international 
deliberation? Some denominations of I. Coniferous 
[species.] Meded. Rijks-Herb. 55: 1-76. [Published 
simultaneously with Part II, Volume 56.] 

1923.03.11. SURINGAR, J. V. Personal ideas about the 
application of the international Rules of Nomencla- 
ture, or as with the Rules themselves, international 
deliberation? II. Some denominations of dicotyledon- 
ous trees and shrubs species. With a retrospection 
and a set of propositions on the Nomenclature-Rules. 
Meded. Rijks-Herb. 56: 1-77. [Published simulta- 
neously with Part I, Volume 55. The 30 nomencla- 
ture proposals are on 67-75, including submission 
of names (prop. 24), The Office of Index Kewensis 
as the standard herbary (prop. 29).] 

1929.03.24. ERIKSSON, J. Ouestion prsente au Congrs 
International de Botanique Cambridge (England) 
1930. 1 P. Stockholm. [Motion 7 in Briquet (1930.07: 
iii). Capitalize some species epithets or not.] 

1929.03. MCKENZIE, K. K. Proposals for modifications 
of the Vienna-Brussels (so-called International Rules 
of Nomenclature. 5 pp. (multigr.) New York. [Motion 
12 in Briquet (1930.07?: iii). A last gasp in the best 
style, brief and clear, of the Brittonian school.] 

1929.03. REHDER, A. Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. J. Ar- 
nold Arbor. 10: 46-65. [Motion 16 in Briquet 
(1930.07?: iii). Completed by "16B," A note on 
names of horticultural variations. J. Arnold Arbor. 
10:66-68.] 

1929.06.07. SHEAR, C. L. Proposed amendments to the 
International Rules for Botanical Nomenclature. Sci- 
ence 69: 601-602. [Motion 18 in Briquet (1930.07?: 



iii).] 



[Begin Page: Page 51] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



1 929.07.05. GUNDERSON, A. An international list of gen- 
era of vascular plants. Science 70: 1 5-1 6. 

1929.07.22. EWART, A. J. Additional nomina conservan- 
da. 3 pp. (typewritten). Melbourne. [Motion 8 in 
Briquet (1930.07?: iii). 47 names, mostly species 
names. ] 

1920.07. ADAMS, J. Suggested modifications of the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. 4 pp. 
(typewritten). Ottawa. [Motion 1 in Briquet (1930.07: 
11).] 

1929. DUGGAR, B. M. (EDITOR). Proceedings of the In- 
ternational Congress for Plant Sciences, Ithaca, New 
York, August 16-23, 1926, Volume 2. George Ban- 
ta Publishing, Menasha, Wisconsin. [Including:] 

1 . SPRAGUE, T. A. Principles and problems of plant 
nomenclature. Pp. 1422-1426. 

2. HITCHCOCK, A. S. The relation of nomenclature to 
taxonomy. Pp. 1434-1439. 

3. HITCHCOCK, A. S. (CHAIRMAN). Round-Table dis- 
cussion: Botanical Nomenclature. Pp. 1556- 

1570. [Papers by Briquet, Howe, Fernald & 

Britton.] 
1929.08?. BRITISH BOTANISTS. Nomenclature Proposals. 
203 pp. London. [The titles in the contents (p. 2) 
differ from the titles of the works. Motion 5 in Briquet 
(1930.07?: ii), using titles from contents. Comprises 
seven works with these titles:] 

1 . RAMSBOTTOM, J., T. A. SPRAGUE, A. J. WILMOTT 
& E. M. WAKEFIELD [Britten died 1924.]. Pro- 
posals by the sub-committee on nomenclature, 
appointed by the Imperial Botanical Conference, 
London, 1924. Pp. 3-45. [See Rendle (1925).] 

2. SPRAGUE, T. A. Proposal for the conservation of 
90 additional generic names. Pp. 46-96. 

3. GREEN, M. L. Proposed standard-species of Nomina 
Generica Conservanda. Pp. 97-109. [This is a 
truncation of the original (Green, 1926.06.30), 

now omitting the stated reason for each choice.] 



4. HITCHCOCK, A. S. & M. L. GREEN. Standard-species 
of Linnean genera of Phanerogamae (1753- 

1754). Pp. 110-199. 

5. WAKEFIELD, E. M. Proposals. P. 200. 

6. WILMOTT, A. J. Proposal. Pp. 201-202. 

7. BURKILL, I. H. Proposal. P. 203. 

1929. CIFERII, R. Proposte dl modlflcazloni alle Regole 
dl Nomenclatura Botanlca. 1 p. [Motion 2 In Briquet 
(1930.077:11). 

1929. ARTHUR, J. C. Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. 4 pp. 
[Page 1 Is reset from J. Bot. 67: 258-259. 1929.09 
Motion 3[A] In Briquet (1930.07?: II). Pp. 2-4 Mo- 
tion 3[B] Is typed.] 

1929. AUDAS, J. W. ET AL. Nomina conservanda. 3 pp. 
(typewritten). [Motion 4 In Briquet (1930.07?: II). 
The Committee on Australian Botanical Nomencla- 
ture was "appointed at a meeting of the Australasian 
Association for the Advancement of Science In 
1924."] 

1929. SEWARD, A. C. ET AL [Memorandum.] 1 p. (type- 
written). [Motion 6 In Briquet (1930.07?: III). For- 
esters and botanists favoring species conservation and 
a judiciary to solve questions of nomenclature.] 

1929. FERNALD, M. L. & C. A. WEATHERBY. Proposed 
amendments to the International Rules of Botanical 
Nomenclature. 6 pp. Boston. [Motion 9 In Briquet 
(1930.07?: III). Not seen.] 

1929. GUNDERSON, A. Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Nomenclature. 2 pp. (typewrit- 



ten). Brooklyn. [Motion 10 In Briquet (1930.07?: 
III). Completed by: "10A" An International list of 
genera of vascular plants. Science 70: 1 5-1 6. 
1929.07.05, and "10B" Genera Pterldophytorum 
et Spermatophytorum Varlatlones Nomenclaturae. 
13 pp. (typewritten) and dated March 1929.] 

1929. HITCHCOCK, A. S. Proposed amendments to the 
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. 3 pp. 
(multlgr.). Washington. [Motion 11 In Briquet 
(1930.07?: III). 

1929. OLIVER, W. R. B. Additional articles and amend- 
ments to the International Rules of Botanical No- 
menclature. 2 pp. Wellington, New Zealand. [Motion 
13 In Briquet (1930.07?: III).] 

1929. PENNELL, F. W. Some proposals for modification 
of the "International Rules of Botanical Nomencla- 
ture." 1 p. (typewritten). Philadelphia. [Motion 14 
In Briquet (1930.07?: III).] 

1929. PFEIFFER, H. Ueber 70 neue Namencomblnatlonen 
In einer einzlgen Cyperaceengattung oder Aufnahme 
eines Gattungsnamens In den Index der "Nomina 
conservanda?" 7 pp. Berlin. [Motion 15 In Briquet 
(1930.07?: III).] 

1929. SHEAR, C. L. Proposed additions to the list of 
Nomina conservanda of the Rules for Botanical No- 



menclature. 1 p. (typewritten). Washington. [Motion 
17 in Briquet (1930.07?: iii).] 
1929. SURINGAR, J. V. Propositions on tine International 
Rules of Botanical Nomenclature in regard to the 
International Botanical Congress in London. 1930. 
27 pp. Wageningen. [Motion 19 in Briquet 
(1930.07?: iii). Completed by "19A" Supplementary 
remarks. 1 p. Wageningen and "19B" Literature 
to be added in Appendix of propositions on the Intern. 
Rules of Bot. Nomenclature (London Congress 1930). 
1 p. Wageningen. 60 species names for conserva- 
tion.] 
1929. WHERRY, E. T. A plea for the conservation of 
Shortia as a generic name. 2 pp. (typewritten). 
Washington. [Motion 20 in Briquet (1930.07?: iv). 
1929. SURINGAR, J. V. The American Code, The Vienna 
Code and the resolutions of the Imperial Botanical 
Conference in London. Will agreement be possible 
in 1930? Meded. Rijks-Herb. 57: 1-[43]. 
1930.07? BRIQUET, J. (RAPP. GN.). Recueil synoptique 
des documents destins servir de base aux dbats 
de la sous-section de nomenclature du V- Congrs 
International de Botanique Cambridge (Angleterre) 
1930. 142 pp. R. Friedliinder & Sohn, Berlin. 
1930.08. BRIQUET, J. (RAPP. GN.). Avis pralable du 
Bureau Permanent des Commissions de nomencla- 
ture sur les motions soumises aux dbats de la sous- 
section de nomenclature du V" Congrs International 
de Botanique Cambridge (Angleterre) 1930. 25 pp. 
R. Friedlinder & Sohn, Berlin. 
1931 .07. GREEN, M. L. Rules of botanical nomenclature 

.... Empire Forest. J. 10(1): 54-72. 
1931 . BRIQUET, J. Compte rendu des dbats de la sous- 
section de nomenclature botanique. Pp. 554-654 in 
F. T. Brooks & T. F. Chipp, Report of the Pro- 
ceedings [of the] Fifth International Botanical Con- 
gress Cambridge, 16-23 August 1930. University 
Press, Cambridge. 
1 931 .1 0.26. John Isaac Briquet died at 62. 
1 932.03. MQLDENKE, H. N. A discussion of tautonyms. 

Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 59: 139-156. [Updated Huth.] 
1933. SPRAGUE, T. A. Plant nomenclature. Bot. Soc. 
Exch. Club Brit. Isles 1932: 300-313. [Chief pro- 



[Begin Page: Page 52] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



visions as amended iiiustrated by exampies from Brit- 
isln fiora.] 

1 933.1 1 . FRIZZELL, D. L. Terminoiogy of types. Amer. 
Midi. Naturaiist 14: 673-668. [Aiplnabetic iisting of 
233 kinds of types witli usage references.] 

1934.06. RENDLE, A. B. International Rules of Botanical 
Nomenclature adopted by the Fifth International Bo- 
tanical Congress, Cambridge, 1930. J. Bot. 72(Suppl.): 
1-29. 

1 934.1 0. MOLDENKE, H. N. A supplementary list of taut- 
onyms and miscellaneous nomenclatural notes. Tor- 
reya34:5-10. 

1934.12.12. DODGE, C. W. Proposals for amendment of 
Art. 20 of the International Rules of Nomenclature. 
Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 21: 709-712. [Proposal 
9inSprague 1935.07:2).] 

1934.12. SAMPAIO, A. J. DE. La mthode de types et la 
nomenclature analogique. Ann. Acad. Brasil. Sci. 
6(4); 173-179. [Proposal 13 in Sprague 1935.07: 

2). Series of examples formed in accordance with 
Rec. X&XI.). Not seen.] 

1934. ADAMS, J. Some amendments to the International 
Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. 8 pp. (typewritten). 
Ottawa. [Proposal 1 in Sprague (1935.07: 1). Not 
seen.] 

1 934. HOCHREUTINER, B. P. G. Proposals for the modi- 
fication of Art. 35, Rec. xxx, and Art. 72. Remarks 
concerning Art. 38. 2 pp. (typewritten). Genve. 
[Proposal 10 in Sprague (1935.07:2). Not seen.] 

1934. RENDER, A. Amendments to the International Rules 
of Nomenclature, 3rd edition. 4 pp. Arnold Arbo- 
retum. [Proposal 12 in Sprague (1935.07: 2). Not 
seen.] 

1935? ARTHUR, J. C. Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Nomenclature. 1 p. Lafayette. 
[Proposal 2 in Sprague (1935.07: 1). Not seen.] 

1935? AUSTRALIAN BOTANISTS. Motion for conservation 
of the generic name Haussmannia . . . four specific 
names .... 1 p. (typewritten). [Proposal 3 in Sprague 
(1935.07:1). Not seen.] 

1935. BECHERER, A. Vorschlige fur die Nomenklatur- 
Kommission des Botaniker Kongresses in Amster- 
dam. 3 pp. (typewritten). Genf. [Proposal 4 in Sprague 
(1935.07: 2). Not seen.] 

1935. DANSER, B. H. Proposals concerning the formation, 
spelling and gender of botanical names. 3 pp. (type- 
written). [Proposal 7 in Sprague (1935.07: 2). See 
also Danser, 1935.04).] 

1935. DIXON, H. N. Proposals concerning bryological 
nomenclature. Rev. Bryol. Lichnol. 7: 137-141. 
[Proposal 8 in Sprague (1935.07: 2). Not seen.] 

1 935. TROUP, R. Motions submitted on behalf of various 
Forestry Institutions and Societies. 3 pp. Oxford: 
[Proposal 14 in Sprague (1935.07:3). Not seen.] 

1935.01 . JONGMANS, W., T. G. HALLE & W. GOTHAN. 
Proposed additions to the International Rules of Bo- 
tanical Nomenclature. 15 pp. Haarlem. [Proposal 11 



in Sprague (1935.07: 2). Not seen.] 

1935.02. "Briquet, J." (deceased). Internationai Ruies 
of Botanicai Nomenciature . . . revised by tine Inter- 
national Botanical Congress of Cambridge, 1930 [as] 
compiled by the Editorial Committee for Nomencla- 
ture from the Report of the Subsection of Nomen- 
clature prepared by John Briquet (deceased). 152 

pp. G. Fischer, Jena. [English by A. B. Rendle, French 
by B. P. G. Hochreutiner, German by H. Harms.] 

1935.03. SPRAGUE, T. A. (EDITOR). [12 botanists'] Ad- 



ditions and amendments to the International Rules 
of Botanical Nomenclature, 3rd edition. Bull. Misc. 
Inform. 1935: 65-92. [Proposal 5 in Sprague (1935: 
07:2).] 

1 935.04.1 1 . LOOSER, G. Motion pour dclarer "nomen 
conservandum" le genre Cryptocarya R. Br. et "no- 
men rejiciendum" le genre Peumus Mol. (Laura- 
ceae). 1 p. (typewritten). Santiago, Chile. [Proposal 
1 7 in Sprague (1 935.09.01 : 3). Not seen.] 

1935.04. DANSER, B. H. Grammatical objections to the 
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature, 
adopted at Cambridge in 1 930. Blumea 1 : 295-304. 
[Proposal 1 5 in Sprague (1 935.09.01 : 2). Orthog- 
raphy-"leave this question to a committee of bot- 
anists who are more or less competent .. ."; see 
Sprague rebuttal (1935.08).] 

1935.04. MOLDENKE, H. N. Additional notes on taut- 
onyms. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 59: 139-156. 

1935.04. SPRAGUE, T. A. Survey of nomenclature (1930- 
1935).Chron. Bot. 1:34-35. 

1935.04. RENDLE, A. B. A short history of the Inter- 
national Botanical Congresses. Chron. Bot. 1: 35- 
40. [Excellent summary from 1864 Brussels Congrs 
International d'Horticulture to the 1930 Cambridge 
Congress, including issues discussed.] 

1935.04. THOMAS, H. H. Proposed additions to the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. J. Bot. 
73: 1 1 1 -1 1 3. [Proposal 6 in Sprague (1 930.07: 2).] 

1935.05.20. KOSTERMANS, A. Motion to ... [conserve] 
... Endlicheria & Emeorhiza. ... 1 p. (typewrit- 
ten). Utrecht. [Proposal 16 in Sprague (1935.09.01: 
3). Not seen.] 

1935.07. SPRAGUE, T. A. (EDITOR). Synopsis of proposals 
concerning nomenclature submitted to the Sixth In- 
ternational Botanical Congress Amsterdam 1935. 80 

pp. University Press, Cambridge. [Known as the Red 
Book by its wrapper.] 

1935.08. REHDER, A., C. A. WEATHERBY, R. MANSFELD 
& M. L. GREEN. Conservation of later generic hom- 
onyms. Bull. Misc. Inform. 1935: 341-544. [Major 
source of conserved homonyms, presented with doc- 
umentation. See Sprague (1940.06) for committee 
decisions.] 

1935.08. SPRAGUE, T. A. The gender of generic names: 
a vindication. Bull. Misc. Inform. 1935: 545-556. 



[Proposal 18 in Sprague (1936.09.101:3). Rebuttal 
of Danser, 1 935.04: important for principles of or- 
thography, Greek compounds, etc.] 

1 935.09.01 . SPRAGUE, T. A. Preliminary opinions con- 
cerning nomenclature proposals submitted to the Sixth 
International Botanical Congress Amsterdam 1935. 
28 pp. University Press, Cambridge. [Known as the 
Grey Book by its wrapper.] 

1935.12.16. Alfred Spear Hitchcock died of heart attack 
on SS. City of Norfolk after remaining in Europe to 
study grasses following the 6th International Botan- 
ical Congress in Amsterdam. 

1936.04. BECHERER, A. Conservation d'homonymes gn- 
riques dans les fougres. Candollea 7: 137-139. 
[Proposal 1940-18 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1936.05. SPRAGUE, T. A. Principle discussions concerning 
nomenclature made by the Sixth International Bo- 
tanical Congress. Bull. Misc. Inform. 1936: 185- 

188. 
1 936.1 0.30. MARTIN, G. W. The application of the ge- 
neric name Guepinia. Amer. J. Bot. 23: 627-629. 
[Proposal 1940-24 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 



[Begin Page: Page 53] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



1936. SPRAGUE, T. A. (RAPP. GN.). Subsection for no- 
menclature. Pp. 333-383 in M. J. Sirks, Zesde 
International Botanisch Congres Amsterdam, 2-7 
September, 1935 Proceedings, Volume 1. E. J. Brill, 
Leiden. 

1936. BURTT-DAVY, J. Forestry 10: 166-168. [Proposal 
1940-22 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii). Not seen.] 

1937.04. FURTADO, C. X. Validity or effectiveness of 
publication. Chron. Bot. 3: 336-339. [Cf. Hochreu- 
tiner, 1938.10.] 

1937.06. BOLLE, F. "Varietas typica." Notizbl. Bot. Gart. 
Berlin-Dahlem 13: 524-530. [Proposal 1940-13 in 
Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1 937.1 0. FURTADO, C. X. A commentary on the laws of 
botanical nomenclature. Gard. Bull. Straits Settlem. 
9: 223-284. [Although sometimes dismissed, the 
author was ahead of his time (invented terms basi- 



nym, isonym).] 
1 937.1 0. FURTADO, C. X. The nomenclature of types. 
Gard. Bull. Straits Settlem. 9: 285-309. [Three kinds 
of primary types, eight kinds of secondary types, and 
six kinds of "duplicate" types.] 

1937. WERDERMANN, E. Kakteenkunde 3: ?. [Proposal 
1 940-1 9 in Lanjouw (1 950.04?: xiii). Not seen.] 

1938.02.15. PFEIFFER, H. Dichromena Oder Rhyncho- 
spora? Zwei Antrige an den VII Internationalen Bo- 
taniker-kongress zur Stabilisierung der Cyperaceen- 
nomenklatur. Report. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 43: 
258-262. [Proposal 1940-23 in Lanjouw(1 950.04?: 
xiii).] 

1938.07.14. RENDER, A., E. J. PALMER & L. CROIZAT. 
Seven binomials proposed as nomina ambigua. J. 
Arnold Arbor. 19: 282-290. [Proposal 1940-20 in 
Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1938.09. MELVILLE, R. Is Ulmus campestris L. a nomen 
ambiguum? J. Bot. 76: 261 -265. [Proposal 1 940- 

16 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1938.10. HOCHREUTINER, B. P. G. Validit des publications 
( I'occasion d'un article de M. Furtado dans Chron- 
ica Botanica). Candollea 7: 509-517. 

1938. CLAUSEN, R. T. On the citation of authorities for 
botanical names. Science 88: 299-300. 

1939.01. FURTADO, C. X. Validating botanical names by 
referring to invalid literature. Gard. Bull. Straits Set- 
tlem. 10: 162-172. [Objected to recent treatments 

of Epipogium and Pterocarpus. ] 

1939.02.16. WHEELER, L. C. Pedilanthus and Cnidos- 
culus proposed for conservation. Contrib. Gray Herb. 
124: 47-52. [Proposal 1940-21 by Lanjouw 

(1 950.04?: xiii).j 

1939.02. WHEELER, L. C. Additions and amendments to 
the International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. 
Amer. Midi. Naturalist 21 : 526-529. [Proposal 

1940-1 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 
1939.04.28. REHDER, A. Proposed amendments to the 
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. J. 
Arnold Arbor. 20: 269-279. [Proposal 1940-6 in 
Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939.04. FOSBERG, F. R. Nomenclatural proposals for 
the 1940 Botanical Congress. Amer. J. Bot. 26: 229- 
231. [Proposal 1940-12 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: 

xiii).] 

1 939.05. ALM, C. G. ET AL. Amendment of Art. 68. 1 
p. Goteborg. [Proposal 1940-3 in Lanjouw 
(1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939.05. FURTADO, C. X. Amendments proposed to the 
International Rules of Botanical Nomenclature (1935). 



Gard. Bull. Straits Settlem. 11: 1-30. [Proposal 
1940-9 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 
1939.06.15. PATRICK, R. A suggested starting point for 
the nomenclature of diatoms. 2 pp. Philadelphia. 
[Proposal 1940-7 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 



1939.06.17. DETONI, G. Vorschliige fur dem Interna- 
tionalen botanischen Kongress in Stockholm 1940 
betreffend den Art. 38 der Internationaler Regein 
der botanischen Nomenklatur. 1 p. Brescia. [Proposal 
1940-2 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939.06. HANDEL-MAZZETTI, H. Uber Mingel und Un- 
klarheiten in den botanischen Nomenklaturregeln. Re- 
pert. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. 46: 82-94. [Proposal 
1940-10 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939.06. DIxoN, H. H. International bryological nomen- 
clature. J. Bot. 77: 176-178. [Proposal 1940-17 
in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939.07? ALLAN, H. H. The nomenclature of hybrids. 
Chron. Bot. 5(2/3): 205-209. [Proposal 1940-4 in 
Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939.07?. SPRAGUE, T. A. The nomenclature of hybrids. 
Chron. Bot. 5(2/3): 209-212. 

1939.10.06. BULLOCK, A. A. Actinocheita. Bull. Misc. 
Inform. 1939: 337-339. [Proposal 1940-28 in Lan- 
jouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939.10. SPRAGUE, T. A. (EDITOR). Proposed additions 
and amendments to the International Rules of Bo- 
tanical Nomenclature [by eight British botanists.] Bull. 
Misc. Inform. 1939: 317-334. [Proposal 1940-14 
in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii). Binary combinations 
under Anonymos published by Walter (1 788).] 

1939. GLEASON, H. A. Proposed amendments to the In- 
ternational Rules of Botanical Nomenclature as 
adopted at Cambridge, 1930. 1 p. New York. [Pro- 
posal 1 940-1 1 in Lanjouw (1 950.04?: xiii).] 

1939? HARA, H. Reject Heleniopis as nomen confusum. 
1 p. [Proposal 1940-25 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939? HOUTZAGERS, G. Nomina ambigua proposals about 
the botanical names of some poplars. 10 pp. (type- 
written). Arnhem. [Proposal 1940-26 in Lanjouw 
(1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939? HOUTZAGERS, G. Proposal [to reject Populus can- 
adensis Moench as a nomen ambiguum]. 1 p. (type- 
written). Arnhem [Proposal 1950-27 in Lanjouw 
(1950.04?: xiii).] 

1939. HOCHREUTINER, B. P. G. [Typewritten] [Proposal 
1940-8 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiii). Not seen.] 

1940.05. MANSFELD, R. Probleme der Nomenklaturre- 
geln. Report. Spec. Nov. Regni Veg. Beih. 121: 4- 
13. 

1940.06. SPRAGUE, T. A. Additional nomina generica 
conservanda (Pteridophyta and Phanerogamae). Bull. 
Misc. Inform. 1940: 81-134. [Approved conserved 
names scheduled for the Amsterdam (4th edition) 
Code.] 

1941 .09? SMITH, A. C. The principle of priority in bio- 
logical nomenclature. Chron. Bot. 9: 114-119. 

1942.01 . EWAN, J. Isotype vs. co-type as designators for 
duplicate type. Chron. Bot. 7: 8-9. [A definitive 
statement in favor of isotype.] 

1942?.12. HARLOW, ?. Scientific names and their va- 
garies. J. Forest. (Washington) 40: [Not seen, ad- 



dressed by Dayton, 1943.05.] 
1943. BLAKE, S. F. Cotype, syntype, and other terms 

referring to type material. Rlnodora 45: 481-485. 
1943.05. DAYTON, W. A. SInould plant taxonomists be 

controlled by an open season or otherwise, or alto- 



[Begin Page: Page 54] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



gether suppressed? J. Forest. (Washington) 41 : 369- 

373. [Comment on Harlow, 19427.12, and Fritz, 

1923.] 
1943.12. BEETLE, A. A. Specific decapitalization. Chron. 

Bot. 7: 380-381 . [In favor.] 
1944.12. A discussion on the differences in observance 

between zoological and botanical nomenclature. Proc. 

Linn. Soc. London 156: 126-146. 

1 . SPRAGUE, M. L. (M. L. GREEN). The case for the 
botanists. 126-134. 

2. HEMMING, F. The case for the zoologists. Pp. 134- 

137. 

3. WILMOTT, A. J. A criticism. Pp. 138 140. 

4. TREWAVAS, E. Comments. Pp. 141. 

5. SPRAGUE, T. A. Comments. Pp. 141-142. 

6. NEAVE, S. Comments, p. 142. 

7. LASZLO, P. DE. A summing-up. Pp. 142-146. 
1945.10? SMITH, A. C. The principle of priority in bio- 
logical nomenclature. Chron. Bot. 9: 114-119. [Op- 
posed nomina specifica conservanda. "If it were 
not for this list of about 850 conserved [generic] 
names thousands upon thousands of specific binomials 
would be invalidated."] 

1945. HYLANDER, N. Nomenklatorische und systema- 
tische Studien iber nordische Gefsspflanzen. Upp- 
sala Univ. rsskr. 7: 1-337. 

1946.07. BAILEY, L. H. Species names with capital letters 
[and] observations on binomials. Gentes Herbarum 
7: 168-174. [For capitalizing, explains that the com- 
ma between binomial and author means "of," opposes 
infraspecific names.] 

1 947.04.01 . CAMP, W. H., H. W. RICKETT & C. A. 
WEATHERBY. International Rules of Botanical No- 
menclature ... revised by the International Congress 
of Amsterdam, 1935. Brittonia6: 1-120. [The Brit- 
tonia Code.] 

1947.04. GLEASON, H. A. On the preservation of well- 
known binomials. Phytologia 2: 201-213. [Parthe- 



nocissus vitacea, not inserta; Nelumbo lutea, not 
pentapetala; Lathyrus maritimus, not japonicus; 
Acer saccharum, not saccharophorum. ] 

1 947.1 0. AIRY SHAW, H. K. Typification of new names 
derived from persons or places. Kew Bull. [1]: 35- 
39. [How would author deal with Asclepias syriaca?] 

1948.03. BUCHANAN, R. E., R. ST. JOHN-BROOKS & R. 
S. BREED. International Bacteriological Code of No- 
menclature. J. Bacteriol. 55: 287-306. 

1948.03. RICKETT, H. W. Citation of author's names in 
taxonomy. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 75: 172-174. [In 

vs. ex vs. apud.] 

1948.04. LITrLE, E. L. A proposal to stabilize plant names. 
Phytologia 2: 451 -456. [Nomen extinctum-un- 

used for 100 years, upping the ante from the Berlin 
code (1 897.06) of unused for 50 years.] 

1948.07.15. MERRILL, E. D. Neolitsea (Bentham) Mer- 
rill, nomen conservandum propositum. J. Arnold Ar- 
bor. 29: 198-201. [Proposal 1950-2 in Lanjouw 
(1 950.04?: xiv.)] 

1948.07.15. MERRILL, E. D. Nomenclatural notes on 
Rafinesque's published papers 1804-1840. J. Arnold 
Arbor. 29: 202-214. [Proposal 1950-3 in Lanjouw 
(1 950.04?: xvi).] 

1948. LANJOUW, J. (EDITOR). [Proposals of Dutch bota- 
nists]. 13 pp. (typewritten). [Proposal 1950-5 in 
Lanjouw (1950.04?: xiv). Lam (p. 1) Introduced the 
word "taxon," equivalent to German "Sippe."] 

1949.01. SHERFF, E. E. (CHAIRMAN). Symposium on bo- 



tanical nomenclature. Amer. J. Bot. 36: 1-32. Com- 
prising: 

1. SHERFF, E. E. Introduction. Pp. 1-4. 

2. WEATHERBY, C. A. Botanical Nomenclature since 

1867. Pp. 5-7. 

3. BLAKE, S. F. Byways of nomenclature. Pp. 8-9. 

[Linnaeus, Rafinesque, Saint-Lager, Bubani.] 

4. RICKEIT, H. W. An editor's point of view. Pp. 10- 

13. 

5. MERRILL, E. D. Adventures in locating validly pub- 

lished but unlisted binomials. Pp. 14-19. 

6. PENNELL, F. W. Toward a simple and clear no- 
menclature. Pp. 19-22. 

7. BAILEY, L. H. Problems in taxonomy. Pp. 22-24. 

8. ROSEDAHL, C. O. The problem of subspecific cat- 
egories. Pp. 24-27. 

9. JUST, T. The nomenclature of fossil plants. Pp. 

28-32. 

1949.06.25. CAMP, W. H., H. W. RICKETT & C. A. 
WEATHERBY. Proposed changes in the International 
Rules of Botanical Nomenclature. Brittonia 7: 1-51. 
[Proposal 1950-62 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: xv). 
Sponsored by a group of 55 taxonomists.] 

1949.10. Smith, A. C. A legislated nomenclature for 
species of plants? Amer. J. Bot. 36: 624-626. [Op- 
posed.] 



1949.12. FURTADO, C. X. A further commentary on the 
rules of nomenclature. Gard. Bull. Singapore 12: 
311-377. [Proposal 1950-83 in Lanjouw (1950.04?: 
xvi). Discriminated between binary and binomial 
names.] 

1949.12? MANSFELD, R. Die Technik der wissenschaft- 
lichen Pflanzenbenennung: Einfihrung in die Inter- 
nationalen Regein der botanischen Nomenklatur. 1 16 
pp. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin. 

1949. TROUPIN, G. La terminologie des types en botanique 
systematique. Bull. Soc. Roy. Bot. Belg. 82: 57-66. 

1950.04? LANJOUW, J. (ACTING RAPP. GN.). Synopsis of 
proposals concerning the International Rules of Bo- 
tanical Nomenclature submitted to the Seventh In- 
ternational Botanical Congress, Stockholm, 1950. 
255 pp. [550 proposals.] 

1950.05. POLUNIN, N. Specific and trivial decapitaliza- 
tion. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 77: 214-221 . [Impor- 
tant statement pro decapitalization.] 

1950.06. HJELMQVIST, H. The conservation of species 
names [invited responses]. Bot. Not. 1950: 328- 

347. 

1. RICKETT, H. W. Pp. 328-329. [Opposed.] 

2. GRAM, K. Pp. 330-332. [Pro, needed for stabil- 
ity.] 

3. CAMP, W. H. Pp. 332-336. [Unrealistic without 
staff.] 

4. JANCHEN, E. Pp. 336-340. [Yes but must be 
limited.] 

5. GILMOUR, J. S. L. Pp. 341-343. [Yes but must 
be limited.] 

6. BAEHNI, C. Pp. 343-346. [Conservation of species 
= sea serpent.] 

7. SKOTTSBERG, C. Pp. 346-347. [Fix the rules then 
no name changes.] 

1950.07. RICKETT, H. W. & W. H. CAMP. The appli- 
cation and use of botanical names. Bull. Torrey Bot. 
Club 77: 245-261 . [Residue of circumscription 
method still in Code vs. type method.] 

1950.07.18. International Association for Plant Taxon- 
omy born by resolution of the Stockholm Congress. 



[Begin Page: Page 55] 



Volume 78, Number 1 
1991 



Nicolson 

History of Botanical Nomenclature 



1950.08? LANJOUW, J. (EDITOR). Botanical nomenclature 
and taxonomy, a symposium organized by the In- 
ternational Union of Biological Sciences with support 
of UNESCO at Utrecht, the Netherlands, June 14- 
19, 1948. Chron. Bot. 12(1/2): 1-87. comprising: 

1 . SPRAGUE, M. L. Minutes of the Utrecht Confer- 
ence. Pp. 9-53. 

2. LANJOUW, J. On the need for an international 
society of plant taxonomists. Pp. 55-57. 

3. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR NOMENCLATURE. 
Pp. 59-62. 

4. SPRAGUE, T. A. International Rules of Botanical 
Nomenclature Supplement embodying the al- 
terations made at the Sixth International Bo- 
tanical Congress, Amsterdam, 1935. Pp. 65- 

77; Appendix II, pp. 79-80; Appendix III, pp. 
81-83; Index of plant names, pp. 85-87. 

1 950.1 1 . WIT, H. C. D. DE. Changes in the International 
Rules of Botanical Nomenclature made by the 7th 
Int. Bot. Congress at Stockholm. An unofficial review. 
Fl. Males Bull. 1(7): 197-231. 

1951 .09. LANJOUW, J. The Stockholm 1950 Rules of 
Botanical Nomenclature [with] nomenclature com- 
mittees appointed at Stockholm. Taxon 1:7-11. 

1 952.01 . MERRILL, E. D. The Cheltenham Conference 
on botanical nomenclature. Taxon 1 : 35-36. [Edi- 
torial committee.] 

1952.09. LANJOUW, J. ET AL. (EDITORS). International 
Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the sev- 
enth International Botanical Congress, Stockholm, 
July 1950. Regnum Veg. 3: 1-228. 

1953. LANJOUW, J. (RAPP. GN.). Nomenclature [Section] 
report. Pp. 457-550 in H. Osvald & E. Aberg 
(editors). Proceedings of the Seventh International 
Botanical Congress, Stockholm, July 12-20, 1950. 
Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm. [Reprinted in Reg- 
num Veg. 3: 457-550. 1 954.01 .] 

1953.07-09. CROIZAT, L. On nomenclature: The "type- 
method." Taxon 2: 105-107; 124-130. [Classic 
polemic against typification and autonyms.] 

1953.09. RICKETr, H. W. Expediency vs. priority in 
nomenclature. Taxon 2: 117-124. [Historical survey 
with bibliogaphy.] 

1954.03 LANJOUW, J. Recueil synoptique des propositions 
concernant le Code International de la Nomenclature 
botanique soumises la Section de Nomenclature du 
Huitime Congrs International de Botanique Paris, 
1954. Regnum Veg. 4: 1-124. [387 proposals.] 

1954.04. STAFLEU, F. A. Report [on] The Genve Con- 
ference on botanical nomenclature and Genera Plan- 
tarum organized by the Botanical Section of the In- 
ternational Union of Biological Sciences 25-30 
January 1954. Regnum Veg. 5: 1-59. 

1954.06. [STAFLEU, F. A.] Preliminary mail vote. Taxon 
3: 157-162. 



1954.09. [STAFLEU, F. A.] [Decisions taken at] Vllltli 
Internationai Botanicai Congress, Paris, 1954, No- 
menciature Section. Taxon 3: 184-196. 

1954.11. STAFLEU, F. A. Nomenciature at tine Paris Con- 
gress. Taxon 3: 217-225. 

1955.08. STAFLEU, F. A. Huitime Congrs Internationai 
de Botanique, Section Nomenciature. Taxon 4: 121- 
177. 

1956.07. STAFLEU, F. A. Nomenciaturai conservation in 
tine plianerogams. Taxon 5: 85-95. [Historicai re- 
view about conserved generic names.] 

1 956.1 0? LANJOUW, J. ET AL. Internationai Code of Bo- 



tanicai Nomenciature adopted by tine Eiglitli Inter- 
nationai Botanicai Congress, Paris, July 1954. Reg- 
num Veg. 8: 1-338. 

1957.04. SMITH, A. C. Fifty years of botanicai nomen- 
ciature. Brittonia 9: 2-8. [History.] 

1 959.01 . LANJOUW, J. (RAPP.). Synopsis of proposais con- 
cerning tine Internationai Code of Botanicai Nomen- 
ciature submitted to tine Nintli Internationai Botanicai 
Congress, Montreai-1959. Regnum Veg. 14: 1- 
84. [333 proposais.] 

1960.12. LANJOUW, J. IXtli Internationai Botanicai Con- 
gress, Nomenciature Section, report presented by tlie 
Bureau of Nomenciature. Regnum Veg. 20: 1-116. 
Reprinted from Proc. IX Int. Bot. Congr. Montreal 
1959 3:27-116. 

1 961 .01 . SMITH, A. C. Tine 1 960 meeting of tlie Editorial 
Committee of tine [Montreal] Internationai Code of 
Botanicai Nomenciature. Taxon 10: 8-13. 

1961 .12. LANJOUW, J. ET AL. (EDITORS). Internationai 
Code of Botanicai Nomenciature adopted by tlie Nintli 
Internationai Botanicai Congress, Montreal, August 
1959. Regnum Veg. 23: 1-372. 

1964.02. LANJOUW, J. & F. A. STAFLEU. Synopsis of 
proposais concerning the Internationai Code of Bo- 
tanicai Nomenciature submitted to the Tenth Inter- 
nationai Botanicai Congress Edinburgh- 1964. Reg- 
num Veg. 30: 1-68. [337 proposals.] 

1964.04. HELLER, J. L. The early history of botanical 
nomenciature. Huntia 1: 33-70. [Linnaean period: 
credited Linnaeus for inventing trivial names [epi- 
thets] that led, after his death, to binomial nomen- 
ciature. Attributed invention to Linnaeus's struggle 
to reform book citation.] 

1964.06. [STAFLEU, F. A.?] Nomenciature proposais Xth 
Congress: preliminary vote. Taxon 13: 183-187. 

1964.07. STAFLEU, F. A. (SECR. GEN. COMM.). Preliminary 
report on the stabilization of names of plants of eco- 
nomic importance. Regnum Veg. 36: 1-36. 

1 964.1 1 . STAFLEU, F. A. Nomenciature at Edinburgh. 
Taxon 13:273-282. 

1965.05. Voss, E. G. On citing the names of publishing 
authors. Taxon 14: 154-160. [In vs. ex.] 

1966.11. STAFLEU, F. A. Tenth Internationai Botanicai 



Congress, Edinburgh, 1964: Nomenclature Section 
[proceedings.] Regnum Veg. 44: 1-75. 

1966.12. LANJOUW, J. ET AL. (EDITORS). International 
Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the Tenth 
International Botanical Congress Edinburgh, August 
1964. Regnum Veg. 46: 1-402. 

1967.1 1 . DANDY, J. E. Index of generic names of vascular 
plants 1753-1774. Regnum Veg. 51: 1-130. 

1968.06. MCVAUGH, R., R. Ross & F. A. STAFLEU. An 
annotated glossary of botanical nomenclature. Reg- 
num Veg. 56: 1-31. 

1969.02. STAFLEU, F. A. (RAPP. GN.) & E. G. Voss 
(VICE-RAPP.). Synopsis of proposals on botanical no- 
menclature, Seattle 1969. Regnum Veg. 60; 1-124 
(including appendices pp. 42-124). [284 proposals.] 

1907.02. STAFLEU, F. A. Nomenclature at Seattle. Taxon 
19:36-42. 

1970.02. MOORE, H. E., F. A. STAFLEU & E. G. Voss. 
XI International Botanical Congress: final mail vote 
and Congress action on nomenclature proposals. Tax- 
on 19:43-51. 

1972.02. STAFLEU, F. A. (RAPP. GN.). & E. G. Voss 
(VICE-RAPP.). Report on botanical nomenclature, Se- 
attle 1 969. Regnum Veg. 81:1-1 33. 



[Begin Page: Page 56] 



Annals of the 

Missouri Botanical Garden 



1972.03. STAFLEU, F. A. (CHAIRMAN) & E. G. VosS(SECR.). 
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopt- 
ed by the Eleventh International Botanical Congress 
Seattle, August 1969. Regnum Veg. 82: 1-426. 

1975.02. STAFLEU, F. A. (RAPP. GN.). & E. G. Voss 
(VICE-RAPP.). Synopsis of proposals on botanical no- 
menclature, Leningrad, 1 975, Taxon 24: 201 -1 54. 
[152 proposals.] 

1978.04? STAFLEU, F. A. (RAPP. GN.). & E. G. Voss 
(VICE-RAPP.). International Code of Botanical No- 
menclature adopted by the Twelfth International Bo- 
tanical Congress, Leningrad, July 1975, Regnum 
Veg. 97: 1-457. 

1979.12? Voss, E. G. Section 1 . Nomenclature. Pp. 129- 
186 in D. V. Lebedev et al. (editors). Proceedings, 
XII International Botanical Congress, Leningrad, 3- 
10 July 1975. Leningrad, Nauka. 

1981 .02. Voss, E. G. (RAPP. GN.) & W. GREUTER 
(VICE-RAPP.). Synopsis of proposals on botanical no- 



menclature, Sydney, 1 981 . Taxon 30: 95-293. [21 

proposals.] 
1982.02. Voss, E. G. Nomenclature at Sydney. Taxon 

31:151-153. 
1982.06. GREUTER, W. (VICE-RAPP.) & E. G. Voss 



(RAPP.-GN.). Report on botanical nomenclature- 
Sydney 1 981 . Englera 2: 1 -1 24. 

1983.10. Voss, E. G. (RAPP. GN.) & W. GREUTER 
(VICE-RAPP.). International Code of Botanical No- 
menclature adopted by the Thirteenth International 
Botanical Congress, Sydney, August 1981. Regnum 
Veg. Ill: 1-472. 

1987.02. GREUTER, W. (RAPP. GN.) & J. MCNEILL 
(VICE-RAPP.). Synopsis of proposals on botanical no- 
menclature, Berlin, 1987. Taxon 36: 174-281. [334 
proposals.] 

1987.12. McNeill, J. XIV International Botanical Con- 
gress: mall vote and final Congress action on no- 
menclatural proposals. Taxon 36: 858-868. 

1988.07. GREUTER, W. ET AL. (EDITORS). International 
Code of Botanical Nomenclature adopted by the 
Fourteenth International Botanical Congress, Berlin, 
July-August 1987. Regnum Veg. 118: 1-328. [En- 
glish only.] 

1988.08. STAFLEU, F. A. The prehistory and history of 
lAPT. Taxon 37: 791-800. 

1989.04. GREUTER, W., J. MCNEILL & D. NICOLSON. 
Report on botanical nomenclature-Berlin 1987. 
Englera 9: 1-228. 



[Begin Page: Page 57] 



WHO CONQUERED THE 
NEW WORLD? OR FOUR 
CENTURIES OF 
EXPLORATION IN AN 
INDEHISCENT CAPSULE 



Joseph Ewan' 



ABSTRACT 

We track botanical conquest from Oviedo (who met Columbus In 1490 and visited Santa Marta, present Colombia, 

In 1 51 5) to the corporate botanical garden at the close of the 1 9th century. We also recognize the foreign 

correspondent 

of the 16th century; the solitary missionary-naturalist of the 17th century; the apologist of systems (who advocates 

schemes of classification) In the 1 8th century; and the naturalist-collector, then often a member of a government. 

sponsored expedition In the 19th century. 

History? We are making history. Plant taxonomy 
Is not a purely descriptive science. It Is history, 
deviously directed toward a conclusion. History 
rests on archives of two sorts: books published from 
archives, and plant mummies ticketed or labeled 
and entombed In herbaria. The conquest of the 
New World by the explorers who observed and 
reported begins with Columbus who met Oviedo 
two years before Columbus set sail. We headline 
the sixteenth century for Its commentators on the 
plants observed; the seventeenth century by the 
missionaries who collected seeds and, now and then, 
specimens; the eighteenth century by apologists of 
systems, collecting exhibits to support their schemes; 
the nineteenth century by the field collector-ex- 
plorer who filled, not cabinets of curiosities, but 
museums which by the twentieth century would 
overflow. 

Floras, faunas, history, everything flows, omnia 
fleurlt. When did the sea bean, Entada gigas, first 
take the Gulf Stream across the Atlantic? The soft 
pithlike wood of culpo or quipo (Cavanlllesia pla- 
tanlfolla), a relative of celba, for centuries had 
been washed on the Azores by tempests. Indeed, 
these waifs were gathering evidence for what In 
Columbus's day was still looked upon as shoreless 
seas.2 When he was coasting among the Bahamas 
on the first of his four voyages, Columbus wrote: 
"I believe there are many plants and many trees 
which are worth a lot In Spain for dyes, and for 
medicines and splcery; but I do not recognize them, 
which gives me great grief. "3 Pineapple as a do- 
mesticate from the Mosquito Coast was described, 
for example, by Columbus's son Ferdinand as a 

"great pine cone; and the plant Is grown In large 
fields [In Veragua, Panama] from shoots that grow 
out of the same plla [and] plants last for three or 
four years, always producing fruit. "4 (See Fig. 1 .) 

Pineapple was transplanted by Guaranles of south 
Brazil and Paraguay-the word Ananas Is a Tupl- 
Guaranl name-via other Amerindians probably 
down the Orinoco avenue of penetration to the 
Caribbean. The Portuguese had delivered It as far 
as Goa on the Indian Ocean during the sixteenth 



century. But pineapple was not the staple food that 
maize was, "the most important of ail foods for 
men and their livestock. "5 By the late sixteenth 
century the peoples of central Africa were raising 
maize, manioc, peanuts, and squashes, ail Ameri- 
can domesticates, but we do not know exactly who 
those phyto-conquestadors were, who delivered the 
foodstuffs, or how early they arrived. So dispro- 
portionate was the west-to-east movement that 
Vavilov listed 640 New World plant domesticates 
but only 50 of African origins. 6 

Weeds from tropical or warmer climates had 
arrived in the Mediterranean from even before the 
days of Marco Polo, and these Old World emigrants 
arrived in Hispaniola in 1494 on the 17 ships of 
Columbus's second voyage. (Do you remember the 
Santa Maria, Pinta, and Nina from your school- 
book history days? The Nina returned to Hispan- 
iola in 1494.) On board were 1 ,200 men (no wom- 
en) taken abroad to build the settlement near 
lsabela.7 Imagine the weed seeds that arrived when 
rootcrowns of the grape vines and sugar cane from 
Spain and her possessions were planted. 

Bixa, the body paint of jungle Indians, in mod- 



'Missouri Botanical Garden, P.O. Box 299, St. Louis, Missouri 63166, U.S.A. 

ANN. MISSOURI BOT. CARD. 78: 57-64. 1991.